View Full Version : Marriage Rejuvenation?
votivesoul
03-12-2016, 08:30 PM
Any great ideas from anyone on how us married folks can keep the home fires burning?
Esther
05-02-2016, 08:31 AM
Any great ideas from anyone on how us married folks can keep the home fires burning?
Start a fire?:happydance
shazeep
05-02-2016, 11:18 AM
:lol
shazeep
05-02-2016, 11:29 AM
This seems radical to me, but i have heard of couples having success with separating until they miss each other, noting and being thankful for whatever quality it is that is missed. Another point in the program, the name of which is eluding me, seemed to be to develop personal interests also, and become more self reliant, the argument being 'and thus more attractive' in a sense.
Our spouses tend to be the ones who "save" us in a sense, like 'from ourselves,' and this inevitably devolves into an unhealthy codependence that may be tolerated, but tends to be wearing. The best fire might be the one you light under yourself.
I'm not retelling it very well; another big point seemed to be about changing one's expectations in their mate--another codependence flag, unrealistic expectations.
Aquila
05-23-2016, 08:06 AM
This seems radical to me, but i have heard of couples having success with separating until they miss each other, noting and being thankful for whatever quality it is that is missed. Another point in the program, the name of which is eluding me, seemed to be to develop personal interests also, and become more self reliant, the argument being 'and thus more attractive' in a sense.
Our spouses tend to be the ones who "save" us in a sense, like 'from ourselves,' and this inevitably devolves into an unhealthy codependence that may be tolerated, but tends to be wearing. The best fire might be the one you light under yourself.
I'm not retelling it very well; another big point seemed to be about changing one's expectations in their mate--another codependence flag, unrealistic expectations.
Very interesting. I think that it is true.... as we surrender our individuality we become less attractive to our mates. We often lose those very qualities or traits that attracted our mate to us in the first place. For example, imagine a woman falling in love with a man who writes and paints in his free time. She is very attracted to him physically and finds his art and writing so fascinating. After marriage, family takes up so much time he neglects his writing and art. Soon, he's no longer the man she found so fascinating. Individuals in relationships need to maintain some degree of individuality to pursue the very things that make them who they are.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 11:50 AM
Establish "date nights". Establish a night or two a month (or one a week) wherein the kids are sent to a sitter (friend or family) so that you and your significant other can go on a "date". It is important to be able to return to a quiet and empty home wherein the two of you can have total privacy.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 11:54 AM
Have you and your partner commit to going to bed unclothed and simply laying together with bodies touching. Commit to kiss for three minutes. If the flame is gone, sometimes biology will take over and nature will take its course.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:23 PM
Learn nurturing love-making techniques. I studied the Kama Sutra and Tantric practice (not just the "positions" people). In Tantra and Kama Sutra, the philosophy of love making and nurturing one's mate is actually very deep. Without practicing these practices, one can take away some valuable insight and inspiration. It brings the same deliberate action and focus to love making as a martial art brings to fighting or defense. You set the environment with candles, oils, foods, incense, and music (I prefer jazz or even Middle Eastern or Indian genres). You adore your mate. Dedicate an entire evening to them. Undressing them, bathing them, giving them a full body massage, and providing more intimate touching/kissing. Nurture them, groom them, perfume them, love them.
In Tantra and Kama Sutra they "worship" their mate. As a Christian, don't worship your mate.... but adore them as a gift from God, a reflection of God, one made in the image of God. Determine to please them in every way, touch every sense (smell, taste, touch, sight, sound). Do and say all the things that they enjoy, whatever they might desire. Surrender self and ego. Dedicate the this time just for them and their pleasure and ultimate fulfillment. However, you are to abstain from full intercourse. This isn't about you, it is about them. It is to train you to love and adore them, to meet their needs without any regard for your own. It is also for them in that it trains them to receive adoration and love from you without feeling any obligation to meet your needs. The next session is your turn. Wait at least two days before the next session. Two days after that, the session is entirely mutual. It isn't strictly about sex, although it is designed to facilitate sexual fulfillment. It is about surrender, service, adoration, and intimacy. It is about learning that even in love making, it is better to give than to receive. It is an ancient philosophy and technique designed to train lovers to adore one another on every level. Elevating love making into an act of worship wherein the couple rejoices and praises God for their mate and the love their mate so lavishly pours out to them. In time, the framework of the "sessions" is no longer necessary and the intimate dedication to one another's needs becomes second nature, coupled with the knowledge of what the other likes and dislikes.
I found this practice of benefit for me and my love. However, it isn't for everyone, especially those who find its non-Christian origins troubling. Follow your heart and conscience in the matter. There are similar approaches designed by counselors. However, I always enjoy the historic, cultural, and exotic. That's just me. Frankly, everything I've put here, with a little imagination, is all you'd need to incorporate this into your love life to "start a fire" if necessary.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:42 PM
You can write love notes (or letters) to each other and leave them where the other will find them.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:43 PM
Send her flowers at her work.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:43 PM
Buy her gifts out of the blue.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:51 PM
Greet him when he gets home from work wearing something "special".
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:51 PM
Cook breakfast or dinner together.... wearing next to nothing.
Aquila
05-31-2016, 12:53 PM
Cook her a full meal, dress-up to serve.
consapente89
05-31-2016, 01:50 PM
What a joke
Aquila
05-31-2016, 02:04 PM
What a joke
It's never a joke to take the time to nurture and adore your mate.
Monterrey
05-31-2016, 04:30 PM
Date lunch at least once a week.
Somehow in Pentecost we see couples that will go all out to get married then everything that they were doing to win the other drops off.
The girl quits dressing nicer for her "man", the man stops all the little things that got her attention...
Then they wonder why the fires go out. You have to keep it exciting.
Date lunch at least once a week.
Somehow in Pentecost we see couples that will go all out to get married then everything that they were doing to win the other drops off.
The girl quits dressing nicer for her "man", the man stops all the little things that got her attention...
Then they wonder why the fires go out. You have to keep it exciting.
Ya this is what they say, start doing all those little things you used to do that endeared you to your spouse. We think we have to keep raising the bar. Just keep it simple.
Aquila
06-01-2016, 02:49 PM
Date lunch at least once a week.
Somehow in Pentecost we see couples that will go all out to get married then everything that they were doing to win the other drops off.
The girl quits dressing nicer for her "man", the man stops all the little things that got her attention...
Then they wonder why the fires go out. You have to keep it exciting.
:thumbsup
Aquila
07-14-2016, 02:31 PM
Hey, I have to share something private that has developed between me and my lady love that might help somebody renew the fire and passion in their love life. Please don't judge us too harshly. LOL
We've done the whole "nude" breakfast together. It was "fun" and "exciting". This has created "sparks" of passion on several occasions. However, we've taken it a bit further. On weekends, when the kids aren't with us, we've continued our "naturism" or "nudism" throughout the day. We don't get dressed unless we have to go out or someone drops by. This has turned our house into our own personal little "garden of Eden". We relax and cuddle while watching television, listen to music, eating, etc. This has led to entire days of multiple moments filled with moments of renewed fire and spontaneous desire between us.
Please don't judge us too harshly. It has worked for us. So, I thought I'd share it, even though it's a bit embarrassing. Spend the day "au naturel"! lol
shazeep
07-14-2016, 03:55 PM
What a jokeyikes!
LibbyRupp
10-30-2016, 08:39 AM
May I suggest Bible Studies together? A good one is A Couple After God's Own Heart. Also their is the Five Love Languages. When you and your spouse work on communication, you can isolate what is suffocating the fire and rebuild it hotter than ever!! This helped my husband and I rekindle our marriage. You would be surprised at what you will learn about your spouse!
LibbyRupp
10-30-2016, 08:40 AM
Oops I typo'd there as their lol sorry still on my first cup of coffee
shazeep
10-30-2016, 08:59 AM
10 years after you are gone, people will still be able to read your feed; but you do have an hour to edit :)
is sex getting stale for you? wanna instantly make it more desirable? just take advantage of your own human nature. make a pact to abstain for x months. No sex whatso ever. Anything but The Act. you are going to be interested by evening, touching again by the next day, and dying of hunger the day after that lol.
Amanah
10-31-2016, 11:48 AM
Hey, I have to share something private that has developed between me and my lady love that might help somebody renew the fire and passion in their love life. Please don't judge us too harshly. LOL
We've done the whole "nude" breakfast together. It was "fun" and "exciting". This has created "sparks" of passion on several occasions. However, we've taken it a bit further. On weekends, when the kids aren't with us, we've continued our "naturism" or "nudism" throughout the day. We don't get dressed unless we have to go out or someone drops by. This has turned our house into our own personal little "garden of Eden". We relax and cuddle while watching television, listen to music, eating, etc. This has led to entire days of multiple moments filled with moments of renewed fire and spontaneous desire between us.
Please don't judge us too harshly. It has worked for us. So, I thought I'd share it, even though it's a bit embarrassing. Spend the day "au naturel"! lol
this seems a bit unsanitary . . . and if you have dogs, it certainly won't work.
KeptByTheWord
10-31-2016, 04:42 PM
Frying bacon would not be a good idea au natural... ;)
You might want to keep the drapes closed and have a bathrobe handy in case the doorbell rings.
shazeep
11-01-2016, 11:42 AM
this seems a bit unsanitary . . . and if you have dogs, it certainly won't work.we wash our hands, yet whatever passes into the body passes through. go ask a Muslim why they don't wash their hands
or sleep in a house with dogs
:lol
we wash our hands
and sleep in houses with dogs
shazeep
11-01-2016, 06:20 PM
harvard-study-aging-liberal-men-have-more-sex-conservative-counterparts
http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/harvard-study-aging-liberal-men-have-more-sex-conservative-counterparts
Aquila
11-02-2016, 01:16 PM
May I suggest Bible Studies together? A good one is A Couple After God's Own Heart. Also their is the Five Love Languages. When you and your spouse work on communication, you can isolate what is suffocating the fire and rebuild it hotter than ever!! This helped my husband and I rekindle our marriage. You would be surprised at what you will learn about your spouse!
Great books! Yes, devotional prayer and study when done together can really, really help.
Great post!
Aquila
11-02-2016, 01:17 PM
10 years after you are gone, people will still be able to read your feed; but you do have an hour to edit :)
is sex getting stale for you? wanna instantly make it more desirable? just take advantage of your own human nature. make a pact to abstain for x months. No sex whatso ever. Anything but The Act. you are going to be interested by evening, touching again by the next day, and dying of hunger the day after that lol.
lol
Aquila
11-02-2016, 01:18 PM
this seems a bit unsanitary . . . and if you have dogs, it certainly won't work.
We have dogs and they've never really bothered us. But I do see how it can be a legit concern. LOL
Aquila
11-02-2016, 01:19 PM
Frying bacon would not be a good idea au natural... ;)
My lady can pull it off. Of course, she wears an apron. :)
Aquila
11-02-2016, 01:21 PM
harvard-study-aging-liberal-men-have-more-sex-conservative-counterparts
http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/harvard-study-aging-liberal-men-have-more-sex-conservative-counterparts
That's because we're freaks, and having a liberal bent leads to less guilt. lol
shazeep
11-02-2016, 09:07 PM
:lol
ok, don't read this right before bed
So, what about Love Your Neighbor, Hann? Fulfills the Law, just like Christ? Nothing wrong with salvation, you should love your brother with all your heart, I don't keep the law and that's about all I am worth,'' Love thy neighbor,'' and there is salvation but it isn't what we are here for, we are here to become priests, and that is the sole goal and why the first disciples went out in a fever to gain a better resurrection, they went out trying to die for the Lord and many did, and they gained a better resurrection because there is more than one. The goal is to become a priest and anyone who does not become a priest will weep and gnash their teeth when they see and realize what the difference is. The difference between being a bride and being a brethren, one is a house that the brethren dwell, and the other is a spirit inside the house. Your goal is to obtain all the promises that were given to Jesus by his father, to become a brethren, an overcomer is like Jesus, a firstfruit who followed Jesus into a new kingdom, and he will rule the nations with a rod of iron as Jesus is right now.well, cool. i have a saying for that. "Those you will wish to be someday
are risking their lives in schemes of peaceful resistance."
The overcomer is the child you raise to be a full grown man, a priest, a brethren of Christ who is to rule all nations.
This means that an Earth is created just for you, before the foundations of this Earth were set, it was set in mind of a ruler who would be a spirit within all flesh.
Everyone who believes in Jesus has the idea that they will be in the first resurrection and truly, everyone who has ever been born will all stand upon this earth at one time, they will stand in corruption or incorruption but we will all be here.
The fire will come and test the work of each man and that work is the body, the house that you are building on a sure foundation. The only way to make a house grow is to raise the child within, and all he eats is the milk of the word and the meat of the word, the house you are building will be tested by fire as what you have done with your hands, and just how much you know the bridegroom.guess i better get scheming
Salvation is extremely broad and just as Jesus said,'' I am the way, I am the truth, and I am the life.'' There are 3 sections of heaven, 3 sections of the temple with 3 veils as it has 3 entrances and the Holy of Holies has no door. A priest would scrape his way into it either underneath it with the weight of it on you scraping through, or through the side with the weight against you and the veil is very heavy. The narrow way is EXTEMELY narrow in that it has no door at all, if you get in, you get in through a squeeze.mind=blown. you should be writing a book, Hann
Or you can stand in the outer court of darkness with all the gentiles and the court is not actually a part of the temple proper, in that outer court, they weep and gnash their teeth BECAUSE they chose to remain gentile, and they have their salvation.
It is a marriage with a marriage contract, an appointed wedding, honeymoon, consummation, a child from the consummation.
Who would want you?
Who would want you?
Who would want you?
ha of course, and they are in hell, huh. they way we say that as an idiom. exactly like that. they have every need taken care of, and are in no pain at all are they. seems like a cruel fate, for eternity tho, Hann.
There is a woman who runs the streets like a *****, a harlot in all her lewdness, O she is pretty and fun to be around and all that but she just smiles at everyone and she goes to grand parties flirting with all the men. At the last party she was dancing for all the men and an old prophet walked in the door and saw her, and she saw him, and the crowd knew that they knew each other. The woman looked at the prophet and said,'' What do you want from me prophet?'' and the prophet answered,'' You know, here, take this cup.''
The woman replied,'' But what is in the cup?''
Then the prophet said,'' If you don't know what is in the cup, then how in the world shall you drink it?''
The woman replied,'' How am I supposed to know what is in the cup?''
The prophet replied,'' Didn't you read the marriage contract woman, you signed it and you haven't read it?''
Just then a great light was shown outside and a horn began to blow as it became louder and louder and the prophet and the woman walked outside and they say beautiful women dressed in white circling the city, and the woman asked the prophet,'' What do these come to do?''
The prophet said,'' Woman, don't you know your husband at all, don't you know your own supposed beloved bridegroom?
The bridegroom so loved the woman that he died for her and from his own body she was created and she didn't even care enough to seek him out, and on top of this, her wedding day has been planned with all her duties, her honeymoon has been planned, her own wedding banquet is planned and she hasn't the slightest clue of her own wedding days, much less her own supposed beloved.
WHAT HUSBAND IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANTS A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT WANT HIM?
What a terrible thing it would be to be a betrothed bridegroom to a bride who wont go out of her way to know her own bridegroom.
''DEPART FROM ME, I NEVER KNEW YOU.''
This is said to gentiles who remain gentiles and they are sent into outer darkness, to the court of gentiles where they will weep, and weep, and weep.
No matter what you do, whether you got 100 bad habits, and even if you don't give that much to charity, above all this is knowing God, knowing your own bridegroom.
What person claims to be a Temple and yet they are clueless about what goes on in the Temple of God?
What person claims to be a bride of Christ in joy when they wont be able to consummate that marriage?ha ok well you're right, you're scaring me. thought i was fearless now too lol, i haven't been scared in years; not of bears even, bears are my friends. if you show no fear, they'll let you pet them. i wouldn't try it on a hungry bear though, and bears are hungry a lot. but they groan when they're hungry though.
So now i'm scared; what about the
"don't be contending about holidays" (feast days, marriage day) NT, you know the one?
Whatkeeps them from the bridal chamber?
Why is it closed to the foolish virgins?
They needed to buy oil, and oil is poured on the head for learning, the oil lights the menorah so one can see their way through darkness in order to easily find the bridal chamber and so the foolish virgin says,'' Give us your oil cause we can not see in this darkness.''
But they have to go purchase the oil themselves and until they purchase that oil, they cannot see, and all that oil does is teach.
Those virgins can't just buy oil and come back, the oil is poured on their head and they begin to learn very fast, but not fast enough to make it back to be able to find the entrance to the bridal chamber.
ok Hann, now i'm tripping lol. and i'm not laughing.
Jesus takes it extremely personal because of the fact that it is extremely personal. Imagine a woman running around claiming to be your legally betrothed woman but she rejects everything about you, your day of birth, your day of death, your anointing, your father's ways, and she acts as if she freaking hates her husband but she doesn't even know herself, how then could she know her husband?
You are the temple, and the bridegroom is a spirit IN YOU, if you don't care enough to learn the ways of the temple you are claiming to be, it just means that you don't love your husband, you would wait till after you are married to know him but that isn't how it works, unless you know your own appointed, you don't know your husband and if you are committing adultery playing the harlot, this simply means that you have rejected the Sabbaths and feasts of Jesus and you keep everything pagan. Why would you obtain the same standing alongside a bride who knew her husband and who didn't commit adultery, one who wasn't a harlot?
Even the harlot is saved but why should she stand beside brides who actually know their husband, who actually know themselves because they know the Temple?
i think she would not be able to anyway, from shame
No man wants a woman who doesn't want him and no woman wants a man who doesn't love her.
It is personal, it is a personal romance and if you don't know what is inside that cup, well, you don't know your husband.
well...i've been here since...really early. and now it's getting late. and i prolly won't sleep tonight, thanks. Note to self, eat Hann in the morning, huh. Write that Book, Hann.
Was Christ a stickler for feasts, Hann?
But that's not really the point, is it
shazeep
11-03-2016, 09:02 AM
ok, and now understand that this guy is not helping me; because there is nothing to fear. He is a great guy, very knowledgeable about the Book, who does not yet have the Word.
KeptByTheWord
11-03-2016, 09:28 PM
My lady can pull it off. Of course, she wears an apron. :)
Nice. :)
KeptByTheWord
11-03-2016, 09:30 PM
Shaz... I don't follow your post about your conversation with someone named Hann.
I think you need a lot more sleep than you're getting. :nod
shazeep
11-04-2016, 09:54 AM
Shaz... I don't follow your post about your conversation with someone named Hann.
I think you need a lot more sleep than you're getting. :nodyes, lack of sleep is a sign, and you even have personal examples of when you were drunk on the wine, and not sleeping, so. I put Hann up strictly, only, because he has a valid reflection of Marriage, that may not be for you right now, no probs.
shazeep
11-04-2016, 09:55 AM
so, you're done? are we done? are we still having fun? :)
mfblume
11-09-2016, 05:28 PM
Speaking of marriage, shaz, are you married and how do you make an income?
shazeep
11-11-2016, 01:25 PM
ya i'm focused right now on a more important--to me--marriage, MB, and "income" implies working for food. i am much too busy for that, working on the first thing
Esaias
11-12-2016, 08:49 PM
ya i'm focused right now on a more important--to me--marriage, MB, and "income" implies working for food. i am much too busy for that, working on the first thing
Ah, so you get food stamps?
mfblume
11-12-2016, 09:15 PM
ya i'm focused right now on a more important--to me--marriage, MB, and "income" implies working for food. i am much too busy for that, working on the first thing
So you receive welfare?
Guess you never read this:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
KeptByTheWord
11-12-2016, 09:16 PM
If I'm not mistaken, he has talked in the past about working on a farm for food. I have no idea if that is still his case or not, as he said something now about living with his mother in Florida, and the farm working was when he was living in Colorado, I think.
mfblume
11-12-2016, 09:26 PM
If I'm not mistaken, he has talked in the past about working on a farm for food. I have no idea if that is still his case or not, as he said something now about living with his mother in Florida, and the farm working was when he was living in Colorado, I think.
So he's not working now? He just said he's too busy to work. Riiiight.
KeptByTheWord
11-12-2016, 09:30 PM
So he's not working now? He just said he's too busy to work. Riiiight.
I don't know what he is doing now. He hasn't said. I just know that in the past he did work on a farm and got paid with food and board, I think.
Aquila
11-28-2016, 01:52 PM
So you receive welfare?
Guess you never read this:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
This verse isn't about Welfare. In context it reads:
2 Thessalonians 3:1-12 King James Version (KJV)
1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
This is about moochers (both in and out of the ministry) that mooch off of the church. It has nothing to do with agrarian welfare or social measures common at the time such as gleaning, the poor tithe, etc. These were all "rights" of the poor under God's Law.
KeptByTheWord
11-28-2016, 07:22 PM
This verse isn't about Welfare. In context it reads:
2 Thessalonians 3:1-12 King James Version (KJV)
1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
This is about moochers (both in and out of the ministry) that mooch off of the church. It has nothing to do with agrarian welfare or social measures common at the time such as gleaning, the poor tithe, etc. These were all "rights" of the poor under God's Law.
God's law provided for those who could not work, due to illness, injury or age. It did not provide for those who were fully able to work and provide for their families, and did not.
Welfare was meant originally to help people in bad times to have time to regroup and get back on their feet, not to prop their feet up forever at the expense of their tax-paying neighbors.
Aquila
11-29-2016, 02:31 PM
God's law provided for those who could not work, due to illness, injury or age. It did not provide for those who were fully able to work and provide for their families, and did not.
We have Bible verses for gleaning rights for the poor, orphaned, widows, strangers, etc. However, do you have chapter and verse from the Law of Moses stating that those who were fully able to work had no right to glean?
Please note: Jesus and his disciples freely gleaned corn from a field in the NT.
Welfare was meant originally to help people in bad times to have time to regroup and get back on their feet, not to prop their feet up forever at the expense of their tax-paying neighbors.
Agreed. In Ohio one can only draw like five years of welfare in one's life time. Typically, if you see someone drawing benefits of any kind for a period beyond that it is because they qualified for SSI based on some diagnosed disability or condition.
allstate1
01-24-2017, 07:14 AM
Deleted for inappropriate comments.
Aquila
01-24-2017, 02:29 PM
Deleted for inappropriate comments.
Aquila
01-24-2017, 02:33 PM
Deleted for inappropriate comments.
Aquila
01-24-2017, 02:47 PM
Deleted for inappropriate comments.
n david
01-24-2017, 04:40 PM
What in the world? I thought this was an Apostolic forum.
Good grief.
Aquila
01-25-2017, 06:19 AM
What in the world? I thought this was an Apostolic forum.
Good grief.
Yeah, someone raced to the gutter.
allstate1
01-25-2017, 06:24 AM
Deleted for inappropriate comments.
votivesoul
01-26-2017, 04:08 AM
Brethren, this thread was not about increasing sexual desire and romance, but about bringing about a happy, changed married, one that perhaps stagnated or has become dull/mundane.
I realize that the marriage bed can play a large part in that, but since that topic gets too close to the fire, as recent posts prove, let's avoid that aspect, and continue talking about other things.
Thanks,
Aaron
allstate1
02-02-2017, 10:58 AM
Brethren, this thread was not about increasing sexual desire and romance, but about bringing about a happy, changed married, one that perhaps stagnated or has become dull/mundane.
I realize that the marriage bed can play a large part in that, but since that topic gets too close to the fire, as recent posts prove, let's avoid that aspect, and continue talking about other things.
Thanks,
Aaron
Brethren?????? I am a Woman
votivesoul
02-09-2017, 03:06 PM
Brethren?????? I am a Woman
Brethern is a generic all inclusive term, much as the Bible uses the word. "Love the brethren", for example.
jediwill83
02-09-2017, 04:11 PM
One thing I do is cook and write poetry.
houston
02-13-2017, 12:25 AM
Just read through this thread. Hilarious.
Aquila
02-14-2017, 08:54 AM
Buy a bag of chocolate Hershey's Kisses. When she gets cantankerous, throw a hand full at her and back away slowly.
KeptByTheWord
02-14-2017, 01:13 PM
Our favorite thing to do together - Take a drive on an old country or logging road together with the windows rolled down. Pack a picnic lunch for two, with a favorite treat. Find a quiet place to spread out a blanket and just sit together, enjoying the picnic, and nature around you. And just talk to each other. No cell phones allowed. (Well, usually where we go, cell phones are useless anyway, no service, lol!)
Buy a bag of chocolate Hershey's Kisses. When she gets cantankerous, throw a hand full at her and back away slowly.
Now that's funny ! :heeheehee
How about Dove , Ghardelli or Godiva chocolates? None of this cheap Nestle or Hershey stuff.
Aquila
04-05-2017, 08:20 AM
My family has embraced the Sabbath principle. We start Friday night and end it Saturday evening. Essentially we set aside Friday night and Saturday for family devotions (family altar) and prayer. We also try to plan things to do together as a family. Friday night is like "date night" and we get the kids off to bed and spend personal time together.
It is easy to allow time to get away from you in this hurried rat-race world. Embracing the principle of Sabbath allows us a biblical window of observance to cultivate our spirituality and our family relationships.
TK Burk
08-11-2017, 03:55 PM
Hey, I have to share something private that has developed between me and my lady love that might help somebody renew the fire and passion in their love life. Please don't judge us too harshly. LOL
**DELETED DUE TO UNACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE**
Please don't judge us too harshly. It has worked for us. So, I thought I'd share it, even though it's a bit embarrassing. Spend the day "au naturel"! lol
Unreal. I was taught that gentlemen don't share such things--especially about their wives. When I saw the crudeness of this post, the following verse came to mind:
Ephesians 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Evang.Benincasa
08-16-2017, 08:54 PM
Unreal. I was taught that gentlemen don't share such things--especially about their wives. When I saw the crudeness of this post, the following verse came to mind:
Ephesians 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Bro, some people just don't have much in the way of wisdom.
Aquila
08-23-2017, 07:06 AM
Unreal. I was taught that gentlemen don't share such things--especially about their wives. When I saw the crudeness of this post, the following verse came to mind:
Ephesians 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
I was just being straight forward, I didn't mean to be crude. We're all adults here, and the topic is a mature one. Certainly if we're going to talk about marriage rejuvenation the subject of sex, intimacy, play, and re-igniting that original spark will come up. What are we going to recommend, going to the zoo? I truly didn't mean to offend any virgin ears. lol
The verse you quoted in context reads...
Ephesians 5:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
This is sad, because it reveals what you were taught concerning sex and marital intimacy. First, this verse isn't about discussing marital intimacy. It is about talking about those things which are done by the wicked in the privacy of darkness. Second, when marital intimacy is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned with a mature frankness, and there is nothing unholy, unclean, or dirty about it.
Proverbs 5:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
And then there is the Hebrew euphemisms in the Song of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 7:8
I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Song of Solomon 2:3
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Love and physical intimacy between a husband and wife is not crude, lewd, or dirty. It's lovely, precious, sacred, joyous, pure, and blessed. When someone gets all "grossed out" or "shocked" about marital intimacy, you can be relatively certain that they don't have a healthy view of this gift of God.
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Evang.Benincasa
08-23-2017, 11:10 PM
I was just being straight forward, I didn't mean to be crude. We're all adults here,
Have you really lost your mind? It is a public forum viewed by everyone who has a search engine. Yeah, everyone is an adult. Everyone excluding you. Young people view this forum, no one needed to hear about you breakfast where you and your girlfriend played Tarzan and Jane. :laffatu
and the topic is a mature one.
Too bad you aren't mature enough to figure out this ain't the place for it.
Certainly if we're going to talk about marriage rejuvenation the subject of sex, intimacy, play, and re-igniting that original spark will come up.
in·ti·mate definition: private or secret.
This is a Christian forum, but you enjoy coming here and posting whatever goof ball foolishness you can muster. You are just so unbelievable.
What are we going to recommend, going to the zoo? I truly didn't mean to offend any virgin ears. lol
Virgin ears? What next, you going to post pictures? Go into the details? Everyone is a prude if they don't go for your description of your imitation of Moses David Berg's breakfast time?
The verse you quoted in context reads...
Ephesians 5:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
This is sad, because it reveals what you were taught concerning sex and marital intimacy.
Your girlfriend needs to buy you a dictionary. :heeheehee
First, this verse isn't about discussing marital intimacy.
Sadly you have no idea what is means to be intimate.
You know what the word decorum means?
It is about talking about those things which are done by the wicked in the privacy of darkness. Second, when marital intimacy is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned with a mature frankness, and there is nothing unholy, unclean, or dirty about it.
No, bro, you are talking about you and your girlfriend stripping down nude to eat waffles. No body cares, and that image nobody need to even go there. :laffatu
Proverbs 5:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
You mostly post with ESV, wonder why you used KJV?
Here is the ESV interpretation. doesn't sound like Aquila sitting naked eating Lucky Charms. :lol
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
[QUOTE=Aquila;1496737]
And then there is the Hebrew euphemisms in the Song of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 7:8
I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Song of Solomon 2:3
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Love and physical intimacy between a husband and wife is not crude, lewd, or dirty. It's lovely, precious, sacred, joyous, pure, and blessed. When someone gets all "grossed out" or "shocked" about marital intimacy, you can be relatively certain that they don't have a healthy view of this gift of God.
Bro, I totally understand that you honestly have no shame, you have no respect for yourself, let alone anyone else. You are like an ecclesiastical John Wayne Gacy, Instead of dressing like Pogo the Clown, you put on the caring Christian. You quote Titus 1:15 but buddy boy, you know that verse is all over your face. That prayer, fasting and getting soaked in the word? Never gonna happen, huh?
Bro, Jesus is the only remedy to everything we have a problem with.
Pray and fast.
votivesoul
08-24-2017, 01:19 AM
I was just being straight forward, I didn't mean to be crude. We're all adults here, and the topic is a mature one. Certainly if we're going to talk about marriage rejuvenation the subject of sex, intimacy, play, and re-igniting that original spark will come up. What are we going to recommend, going to the zoo? I truly didn't mean to offend any virgin ears. lol
The verse you quoted in context reads...
Ephesians 5:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
This is sad, because it reveals what you were taught concerning sex and marital intimacy. First, this verse isn't about discussing marital intimacy. It is about talking about those things which are done by the wicked in the privacy of darkness. Second, when marital intimacy is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned with a mature frankness, and there is nothing unholy, unclean, or dirty about it.
Proverbs 5:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
And then there is the Hebrew euphemisms in the Song of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 7:8
I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Song of Solomon 2:3
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Love and physical intimacy between a husband and wife is not crude, lewd, or dirty. It's lovely, precious, sacred, joyous, pure, and blessed. When someone gets all "grossed out" or "shocked" about marital intimacy, you can be relatively certain that they don't have a healthy view of this gift of God.
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Aquila, are you married? I know you were several years ago, but divorced, per your own testimony here at AFF. But what about right now?
Aquila
08-24-2017, 08:00 AM
I'm way too uptight.
The odds are that only a few people would have noticed what was written here if you hadn't made a big deal out of it.
But you make some good points. Maybe a marriage thread isn't the best thing for an open forum wherein the more intimate elements of marriage might come up in a discussion.
I do know of several Christian forums wherein they have the marriage section locked down and inaccessible to those who are not over 18.
So, instead of lobbing personal insults, I'm going to perhaps suggest a solution. Can we make the marriage section more restricted so that only adults can access it? That way if a more intimate subject matter is being discussed it is more private.
Aquila
08-24-2017, 08:03 AM
Aquila, are you married? I know you were several years ago, but divorced, per your own testimony here at AFF. But what about right now?
Yes, we're married. And I'm believing the latter house will be greater than the former house. :happydance
I've already had a number of people tell me I'm in sin for remarrying. So, if you're going to go down that road, I just wanted you to know I'm already well informed.
Aquila
08-24-2017, 08:09 AM
Our favorite thing to do together - Take a drive on an old country or logging road together with the windows rolled down. Pack a picnic lunch for two, with a favorite treat. Find a quiet place to spread out a blanket and just sit together, enjoying the picnic, and nature around you. And just talk to each other. No cell phones allowed. (Well, usually where we go, cell phones are useless anyway, no service, lol!)
:thumbsup
That sounds very nice. I'm now planning to do this as the weather cools for the Fall. Thanks for the idea.
Amanah
08-24-2017, 08:12 AM
I'm going to perhaps suggest a solution. Can we make the marriage section more restricted so that only adults can access it? That way if a more intimate subject matter is being discussed it is more private.
I still don't think it's a good idea to discuss intimate details of our relationships on a Forum, even in a restricted area :snapout
Aquila
08-24-2017, 11:59 AM
I still don't think it's a good idea to discuss intimate details of our relationships on a Forum, even in a restricted area :snapout
I can respect that. Eh, to each their own.
But a restriction would allow some degree of protection for those who are under 18.
Evang.Benincasa
08-24-2017, 05:08 PM
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1496982&postcount=73
You made up my quote? To make it look like I was saying that I'm uptight?
Chris, you are such a liar. :laffatu
The odds are that only a few people would have noticed what was written here if you hadn't made a big deal out of it.
No, most people just get disgusted and leave the thread. Because they see it's just you playing shock the Christians.
But you make some good points. Maybe a marriage thread isn't the best thing for an open forum wherein the more intimate elements of marriage might come up in a discussion.
Oh, you just figured that out? You mean you just stumble your way through life like a drunken man carrying a ming vase? Chris, your wife, is she cool with you telling everyone on the World Wide Web that she dusts the shelves in the nude? No Apostolic wife would appreciate their husband talking about their PRIVATE life on a forum? A forum? Good points, like the ones on top of your head. :throwrock
I do know of several Christian forums wherein they have the marriage section locked down and inaccessible to those who are not over 18.
Really?
May I suggest you go there.
Where you and the other "Christians" can talk about your weirdness. Locked down Marriage forum? Right on bro! :smack
You know, this place isn't helping you. You are either one of the biggest fakers, or you are literally coming apart at the seams. Bro, you need to find a place to meet Jesus Christ. You need to be filled to overflowing with the Holy Ghost. Bro, your solutions aren't solutions, they are just deeper into the pit.
So, instead of lobbing personal insults, I'm going to perhaps suggest a solution. Can we make the marriage section more restricted so that only adults can access it? That way if a more intimate subject matter is being discussed it is more private.
With you? You think anyone in their right mind would give you access to a locked private room on their forum? To discuss your weird inclinations.
Insults? No, they are observations of your great zeal to be over the top on a Christain forum.
Esaias
08-24-2017, 06:58 PM
I can respect that. Eh, to each their own.
But a restriction would allow some degree of protection for those who are under 18.
What could you possibly want to discuss, on an internet forum, that "under 18 not allowed" would even remotely appeal to you?
GOOD GRIEF, you need to go.
Evang.Benincasa
08-24-2017, 07:08 PM
What could you possibly want to discuss, on an internet forum, that "under 18 not allowed" would even remotely appeal to you?
GOOD GRIEF, you need to go.
What kind of "Christian" forum has an Adult Section?
I think Aquila done bumped his head. :heeheehee
TK Burk
08-24-2017, 07:36 PM
I was just being straight forward, I didn't mean to be crude. We're all adults here, and the topic is a mature one. Certainly if we're going to talk about marriage rejuvenation the subject of sex, intimacy, play, and re-igniting that original spark will come up. What are we going to recommend, going to the zoo? I truly didn't mean to offend any virgin ears. lol
The verse you quoted in context reads...
Ephesians 5:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
This is sad, because it reveals what you were taught concerning sex and marital intimacy. First, this verse isn't about discussing marital intimacy. It is about talking about those things which are done by the wicked in the privacy of darkness. Second, when marital intimacy is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned with a mature frankness, and there is nothing unholy, unclean, or dirty about it.
First, you're correct, it is about things done in secret and in darkness. Just like the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is holy if done in marriage, and is unholy if done outside of marriage. But if you take what is done between the two in marriage and talk that around it becomes perverted. It is sad you cannot see that.
Years ago I wrote a several lesson study entitled Holy Homes. I've taught that series in several churches. So, your summary of what I was taught and what I believe on this issue is very wrong. The difference between you and me is that I do not discuss intimate details about my wife and me. Not in a marriage seminar setting, and especially not for all to see on the World Wide Web. I have way too much respect for my wife to place her in a showcase in Amsterdam.
Proverbs 5:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
And then there is the Hebrew euphemisms in the Song of Solomon.
Song of Solomon 7:8
I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Song of Solomon 2:3
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Love and physical intimacy between a husband and wife is not crude, lewd, or dirty. It's lovely, precious, sacred, joyous, pure, and blessed. When someone gets all "grossed out" or "shocked" about marital intimacy, you can be relatively certain that they don't have a healthy view of this gift of God.
So now you're Solomon? Song of Solomon is an inspired book, not a tell all sex book. It's one thing to talk about intimacy within a marital relationship. It quite another to tell everyone about sexual conquests. The former is a teaching on intimate principles. The latter is a vulgar sharing of fleshly lusts, which is more than likely shared to excite the teller.
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Ah, "the pure"...now isn't that a novel thing for you to mention here?
Aquila
08-25-2017, 11:18 AM
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1496982&postcount=73
You made up my quote? To make it look like I was saying that I'm uptight?
Chris, you are such a liar. :laffatu
No, most people just get disgusted and leave the thread. Because they see it's just you playing shock the Christians.
Oh, you just figured that out? You mean you just stumble your way through life like a drunken man carrying a ming vase? Chris, your wife, is she cool with you telling everyone on the World Wide Web that she dusts the shelves in the nude? No Apostolic wife would appreciate their husband talking about their PRIVATE life on a forum? A forum? Good points, like the ones on top of your head. :throwrock
Really?
May I suggest you go there.
Where you and the other "Christians" can talk about your weirdness. Locked down Marriage forum? Right on bro! :smack
You know, this place isn't helping you. You are either one of the biggest fakers, or you are literally coming apart at the seams. Bro, you need to find a place to meet Jesus Christ. You need to be filled to overflowing with the Holy Ghost. Bro, your solutions aren't solutions, they are just deeper into the pit.
With you? You think anyone in their right mind would give you access to a locked private room on their forum? To discuss your weird inclinations.
Insults? No, they are observations of your great zeal to be over the top on a Christain forum.
Hey, I can understand if you felt some posts were over the top. I get that. And in retrospect, maybe they were. But you're really going way out there with it. Again, to the point of being very personal in your attacks. Can't you address an issue without trying to personally tear the person you disagree with apart?
Aquila
08-25-2017, 11:24 AM
What could you possibly want to discuss, on an internet forum, that "under 18 not allowed" would even remotely appeal to you?
GOOD GRIEF, you need to go.
Well, I could perform some searches on this forum regarding questions relating to the marriage bed, and I'm certain you'll see many threads started (not even from me) on questions regarding "m", "os", etc.
You guys are going to run with it like that's what I'm wanting. No, I'm seeing that there are a number of rather mature subjects discussed from polygamy to other things. I think you guys have a good point. Perhaps restricting the marriage thread to those profiles registered as being 18 or older would not only protect those who are under age, but offer a degree of freedom for those with perhaps more serious questions that are of an intimate nature.
It's not a "bad" idea. IF... you're really that concerned.
Aquila
08-25-2017, 11:27 AM
What kind of "Christian" forum has an Adult Section?
I think Aquila done bumped his head. :heeheehee
Several. It's my understanding that should your profile be registered with a birth date that makes you under 18 years of age you can't even see the marriage section. It allows adults to discuss various marital issues without the prying eyes of minors. It's really a common sense approach. Protects minors from being exposed to more mature topics and it allows married adults to freely discuss issues, questions, etc. without being worried that some minor might read their posts.
Aquila
08-25-2017, 12:01 PM
First, you're correct, it is about things done in secret and in darkness. Just like the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is holy if done in marriage, and is unholy if done outside of marriage. But if you take what is done between the two in marriage and talk that around it becomes perverted. It is sad you cannot see that.
For the most part I agree with you. However, what was said here by myself and others was posted in a section of the forum that titled, "Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues". I didn't post anything intimate in "The Fellowship Hall". If you guys are so worried about the subject matter, why have a "Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues" section of the forum? Is it only to discuss what nights we play Scrabble, Bridge, and Monopoly? What television shows we have to suffer through that our spouses like? Or maybe it is to discuss our chores list? Marital issues by nature can be mature topics. It could include subjects like arguing, fights, a spouse's hidden drinking problem, sex, sexual dysfunctions, questions relating to frequency, impotence, recovering from affairs, etc. Other Christian forums have marriage sections that are on fire with questions, people seeking help, suggestions, advice, about all kinds of things. In a way, this forum's marriage section is DEAD. It's rarely posted to at all. Why are other Christians on other Christian forums so willing to be open books and tackle the mature topics... but Apostolics get squeamish about the whole thing? Y'all need to lighten up, open up, get real, make it plain, don't be so afraid of what someone else might say or think, and have reasonable measures to keep minors out of the topic. Even Facebook has an age requirement. Or... why even have a Marriage Section? Oh, it's the bridge night thing. No problem. Now back to our regularly scheduled program of Mayberry. I think you know what I'm saying.
Years ago I wrote a several lesson study entitled Holy Homes. I've taught that series in several churches.
That sounds very powerful. I'd like to be in one of your classes sometime if you're ever in South Western Ohio.
So, your summary of what I was taught and what I believe on this issue is very wrong. The difference between you and me is that I do not discuss intimate details about my wife and me. Not in a marriage seminar setting, and especially not for all to see on the World Wide Web. I have way too much respect for my wife to place her in a showcase in Amsterdam.
I can respect that. And I also think that we're actually not so far apart on this issue as you might think. Please. Take a step back with me and try to see what I'm trying to say in the next few things I write to you. Try to refrain from judging and just try to understand what I'm trying to say. What if someone else doesn't entirely share your approach to the issue? For example, I'm relatively anonymous. Few, if anyone here, knows my real name or my last name. That allows me some degree of freedom to be more frank. Now, I assure you, I wouldn't share those kinds of things in a seminar or anything attached to my real name on the world wide web either. I posted those things in a Marriage Rejuvenation thread. I didn't post them in The Fellowship Hall. The question was asked, "Any great ideas from anyone on how us married folks can keep the home fires burning?" Okay, that can go almost anywhere if people post with frankness and honesty. I'm thinking about those couples whose "home fires" (their passion) is dead. Their marriage bed cold. The intimacy gone. I didn't mean any harm by sharing a few intimate ideas based on our private lives. I meant to offer some ideas to heat things up for couples who might be trapped under ice. That was my intention. :(
So now you're Solomon? Song of Solomon is an inspired book, not a tell all sex book. It's one thing to talk about intimacy within a marital relationship. It quite another to tell everyone about sexual conquests. The former is a teaching on intimate principles. The latter is a vulgar sharing of fleshly lusts, which is more than likely shared to excite the teller.
You know that rabbinical schools typically didn't allow students to read the Song of Songs unless their students were married or over 30 years of age. My point was that while yes, there are spiritual types and shadows throughout the SoS, they are depicted in ways that would shock the modern reader if they were written in our lingo. And in the context, it's not impure or unholy just because it's brazenly erotic.
Ah, "the pure"...now isn't that a novel thing for you to mention here?
Please notice that I didn't attack you personally anywhere in my post above. I only shared my thoughts with you openly and honestly. What gives man?
n david
08-25-2017, 12:18 PM
I still don't think it's a good idea to discuss intimate details of our relationships on a Forum, even in a restricted area :snapout
Absolutely! :thumbsup
There are things a gentleman should not discuss, namely physical intimacy with his wife.
This isn't a locker room. Nor is it a frat house or wherever else worldly men gather to boast of their conquests and sexual prowess.
I know a Pastor and wife (UPC) who would conduct an annual young adult / married couples "bible study" series. It was done during the weeknight bible study and usually during the summer, when attendance was lower due to vacations, etc. I heard about it before attending it. I was shocked at what was discussed, even with it being divided with men in one area and women in another. I'm not exaggerating when I say much of what was discussed was pornographic in detail. It's no wonder that church has had several affairs over the years!
Call me a prude, but I don't believe men should be discussing sex with other men (nor women with other women). I don't want to know what turns another man's wife on. I don't want to know his exploits, what he does or how/where he's done it. And I'm sure not going to talk about mine. I don't even share that information with my best friend, and he knows pretty much everything about me.
Aquila
08-25-2017, 12:38 PM
Absolutely! :thumbsup
There are things a gentleman should not discuss, namely physical intimacy with his wife.
This isn't a locker room. Nor is it a frat house or wherever else worldly men gather to boast of their conquests and sexual prowess.
I know a Pastor and wife (UPC) who would conduct an annual young adult / married couples "bible study" series. It was done during the weeknight bible study and usually during the summer, when attendance was lower due to vacations, etc. I heard about it before attending it. I was shocked at what was discussed, even with it being divided with men in one area and women in another. I'm not exaggerating when I say much of what was discussed was pornographic in detail. It's no wonder that church has had several affairs over the years!
Call me a prude, but I don't believe men should be discussing sex with other men (nor women with other women). I don't want to know what turns another man's wife on. I don't want to know his exploits, what he does or how/where he's done it. And I'm sure not going to talk about mine. I don't even share that information with my best friend, and he knows pretty much everything about me.
There you have it folks. Ndavid has spoken and we all must agree and abide by his convictions, opinions, and conclusions. And no one is permitted to disagree with or have a different approach, else they be slandered as perverts and such. In fact, if you agree with Ndavid, your church will experience fewer affairs, as he clearly implies. Let's all just do things exactly as Ndavid would. There can be no freedom of thought, expression, or opinion unless it agrees with Ndavid's.
All hail Ndavid! LOL
Aquila
08-25-2017, 12:50 PM
What I find most interesting is that the people that make these things so "in your face" are those who go off ranting and raving against them.
For example, back in the 90's a man in church pointed out that he had to explain to his kids what "os" was because of various details about what happened between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky being in the news.
I asked, "Bill and Monica tried to keep what happened a secret. Who made those details front page news?"
Most of this would have been in a dead and buried thread and if those who say they oppose it didn't stir it up for further discussion. :hmmm
n david
08-25-2017, 12:51 PM
There you have it folks. Ndavid has spoken and we all must agree and abide by his convictions, opinions, and conclusions. And no one is permitted to disagree with or have a different approach, else they be slandered as perverts and such. In fact, if you agree with Ndavid, your church will experience fewer affairs, as he clearly implies. Let's all just do things exactly as Ndavid would. There can be no freedom of thought, expression, or opinion unless it agrees with Ndavid's.
All hail Ndavid! LOL
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/dis3.gif
Aquila
08-25-2017, 01:07 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/dis3.gif
So, can we peacefully and logically disagree without you trying to paint me as a depraved pervert? Are you willing to see that although I have a more open approach, my intentions are not diabolical? Can you acknowledge that I was only trying to break the ice and maybe give some ideas to couples who are struggling with lack of passion in their marriages? I'm not the monster you depict me as being. :(
n david
08-25-2017, 01:50 PM
So, can we peacefully and logically disagree without you trying to paint me as a depraved pervert? Are you willing to see that although I have a more open approach, my intentions are not diabolical? Can you acknowledge that I was only trying to break the ice and maybe give some ideas to couples who are struggling with lack of passion in their marriages? I'm not the monster you depict me as being. :(
Aquila, I'm sorry you took my post that way, please forgive me if I offended you. I certainly did not intend to paint you as a depraved pervert or some kind of monster.
I just wish couples would keep private things private. We share too much these days, IMO.
I don't really want to see a pic of the breakfast or dinner you had, either. :lol
TK Burk
08-25-2017, 02:48 PM
Call me a prude, but I don't believe men should be discussing sex with other men (nor women with other women). I don't want to know what turns another man's wife on. I don't want to know his exploits, what he does or how/where he's done it. And I'm sure not going to talk about mine. I don't even share that information with my best friend, and he knows pretty much everything about me.
:thumbsup
TK Burk
08-25-2017, 03:55 PM
For the most part I agree with you. However, what was said here by myself and others was posted in a section of the forum that titled, "Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues". I didn't post anything intimate in "The Fellowship Hall". If you guys are so worried about the subject matter, why have a "Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues" section of the forum? Is it only to discuss what nights we play Scrabble, Bridge, and Monopoly? What television shows we have to suffer through that our spouses like? Or maybe it is to discuss our chores list? Marital issues by nature can be mature topics. It could include subjects like arguing, fights, a spouse's hidden drinking problem, sex, sexual dysfunctions, questions relating to frequency, impotence, recovering from affairs, etc. Other Christian forums have marriage sections that are on fire with questions, people seeking help, suggestions, advice, about all kinds of things. In a way, this forum's marriage section is DEAD. It's rarely posted to at all. Why are other Christians on other Christian forums so willing to be open books and tackle the mature topics... but Apostolics get squeamish about the whole thing? Y'all need to lighten up, open up, get real, make it plain, don't be so afraid of what someone else might say or think, and have reasonable measures to keep minors out of the topic. Even Facebook has an age requirement. Or... why even have a Marriage Section? Oh, it's the bridge night thing. No problem. Now back to our regularly scheduled program of Mayberry. I think you know what I'm saying.
I do know that Hotels and Motels report that X-rated movie rentals are the same regardless if the guest is there for a secular or church conference. So, maybe those other "Christian" forums are "on fire" on this topic for reasons that are not so savory??
That sounds very powerful. I'd like to be in one of your classes sometime if you're ever in South Western Ohio.
Only God knows...
I can respect that. And I also think that we're actually not so far apart on this issue as you might think. Please. Take a step back with me and try to see what I'm trying to say in the next few things I write to you. Try to refrain from judging and just try to understand what I'm trying to say. What if someone else doesn't entirely share your approach to the issue? For example, I'm relatively anonymous. Few, if anyone here, knows my real name or my last name. That allows me some degree of freedom to be more frank. Now, I assure you, I wouldn't share those kinds of things in a seminar or anything attached to my real name on the world wide web either. I posted those things in a Marriage Rejuvenation thread. I didn't post them in The Fellowship Hall. The question was asked, "Any great ideas from anyone on how us married folks can keep the home fires burning?" Okay, that can go almost anywhere if people post with frankness and honesty. I'm thinking about those couples whose "home fires" (their passion) is dead. Their marriage bed cold. The intimacy gone. I didn't mean any harm by sharing a few intimate ideas based on our private lives. I meant to offer some ideas to heat things up for couples who might be trapped under ice. That was my intention. :(
I get that. I would share such things in a third person rather than first. Like I posted:
It's one thing to talk about intimacy within a marital relationship. It quite another to tell everyone about sexual conquests. The former is a teaching on intimate principles. The latter is a vulgar sharing of fleshly lusts, which is more than likely shared to excite the teller.
You know that rabbinical schools typically didn't allow students to read the Song of Songs unless their students were married or over 30 years of age. My point was that while yes, there are spiritual types and shadows throughout the SoS, they are depicted in ways that would shock the modern reader if they were written in our lingo. And in the context, it's not impure or unholy just because it's brazenly erotic.
SoS also just made it into the biblical canon due to its message. However, inspired of God is still inspired of God. Many believe it references God and His bride. Others that it speaks of a man and woman's love to each other. I believe both can be seen. I will add that of all the books of the Bible, SoS proves a biblical marital relationship consists only between a man and a woman.
Please notice that I didn't attack you personally anywhere in my post above. I only shared my thoughts with you openly and honestly. What gives man?
I did not attack you either. You spoke of the pure and the defiled, and within the context of this discussion I believe it is clear how I used my response.
votivesoul
08-26-2017, 02:17 AM
Yes, we're married. And I'm believing the latter house will be greater than the former house. :happydance
I've already had a number of people tell me I'm in sin for remarrying. So, if you're going to go down that road, I just wanted you to know I'm already well informed.
No, I'm not going down that road. Not my business.
This, however, is the road I intend to travel:
On page 2, post #20, the one that is bothersome to many of the people posting in this thread, I see that it is dated 07-14-2016.
Here's the link:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1440349&postcount=20
However, in this thread:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1446064&postcount=26
you make specific mention of your "fiance". Not wife, but fiance. This post is dated 09-02-2016.
Please reconcile the dates and the data you have provided. In a post dated from July of last year, you mention or refer to several different acts or actions of a clearly sexual nature with your "lady love". Then, in a post dated from September of last year, which is two months after the July 2016 post, you mention that the woman in your life is not a wife, but a fiance.
Point blank:
Were you married to your "lady love" before you made the post from July of last year, even though she was merely your fiance as of two months later?
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 06:58 AM
Aquila what's up with that?
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 07:37 AM
Absolutely! :thumbsup
There are things a gentleman should not discuss, namely physical intimacy with his wife.
Most likely why the guy fell out with his original wife. It is all about making the woman feel secure. You are the husband, and you are the provider. If she doesn't feel security, then that's the husband's fault. This joker finds every opportunity to shock the forum, whether in his ultra liberal political views, his religious stance (I say that loosely) to his relationship with his girlfriend. We are just here to amuse Chris. Nothing more, he loves being the guy dancing on the table with a lampshade on his head. He most likely is the invisible man in his real world setting. Because you KNOW, none of his circus routine would last 15 minutes in real time face to face. He wouldn't be able to cut and paste, and therefore he would run out of material.
This isn't a locker room. Nor is it a frat house or wherever else worldly men gather to boast of their conquests and sexual prowess.
Yet, that isn't exactly what this joker is doing. He comes up with the most liberal flaketard foolishness. I mean, seriously, this isn't just about him posting about his fantasies. It is a total package, he is so sideways on so many levels. It is no longer funny.
I know a Pastor and wife (UPC) who would conduct an annual young adult / married couples "bible study" series. It was done during the weeknight bible study and usually during the summer, when attendance was lower due to vacations, etc. I heard about it before attending it. I was shocked at what was discussed, even with it being divided with men in one area and women in another. I'm not exaggerating when I say much of what was discussed was pornographic in detail. It's no wonder that church has had several affairs over the years!
No doubt, because the individuals lose whatever little Holy Ghost they once had. No one ever stood up in the group and pointed out that the weaklings running the show were actually perverts. Tar and feather always sets a man free. :lol
Call me a prude,
My brother, over the years I always admire your normalcy and saneness.
While we may not always agree, I appreciate sanity. A voice crying in the Childreness is so much needed in this time. :)
but I don't believe men should be discussing sex with other men (nor women with other women). I don't want to know what turns another man's wife on. I don't want to know his exploits, what he does or how/where he's done it. And I'm sure not going to talk about mine. I don't even share that information with my best friend, and he knows pretty much everything about me.
Excellent, and thank you :thumbsup
Aquila go to the woodshed and learn what this meaneth.
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 07:39 AM
I did not attack you either. You spoke of the pure and the defiled, and within the context of this discussion I believe it is clear how I used my response.
Elder, the guy is an ultra liberal.
Playing the victim is one of his tools in his bag of tricks. :heeheehee
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 07:46 AM
I don't really want to see a pic of the breakfast or dinner you had, either. :lol
Thank God for that.
I think Aquila is down at Planet Fitness with towel draped around his neck waiting for the guy with the calzone to get off the machine. He isn't waiting for the use of the equipment. But for the calzone. :heeheehee
Aquila, I'm sorry you took my post that way, please forgive me if I offended you. I certainly did not intend to paint you as a depraved pervert or some kind of monster.
WARNING: :stop
ULTRA LIBERAL UP AHEAD.
WILL COWER AND PLAY VICTIM AT ANY GIVEN CHANCE
I just wish couples would keep private things private. We share too much these days, IMO.
Amen, that isn't hard to figure out.
Chris, knows this, but chooses to use his magnifying glass to burn the ants. Instead of observe them and use the tool properly.
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 08:06 AM
Hey, I can understand if you felt some posts were over the top. I get that. And in retrospect, maybe they were. But you're really going way out there with it. Again, to the point of being very personal in your attacks. Can't you address an issue without trying to personally tear the person you disagree with apart?
Bro, addressing the issue?
Chris, I just see you as a Prophet of Baal.
Oh, while you play victim here chew on this
Oh please, you're just a grease monkey, who pooped his pants when spanked, embraced the thug life, and never had the guts to serve his country. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1492356&postcount=428
Get over it. Every kid gets spanked.
Bro, you lost your right to victimhood a long time ago.
Sad thing is this, you actually still believe that your circus act is still believable. it isn't, you are here for one reason. That is to be so over the top that you can laugh as you freak out other members of this forum.
You need to take your own advise and seek JESUS in prayer, fasting, and getting "soaked?" in the word.
Chris, the clock is ticking dude.
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 08:08 AM
Well, I could perform some searches on this forum regarding questions relating to the marriage bed, and I'm certain you'll see many threads started (not even from me) on questions regarding "m", "os", etc.
You guys are going to run with it like that's what I'm wanting. No, I'm seeing that there are a number of rather mature subjects discussed from polygamy to other things. I think you guys have a good point. Perhaps restricting the marriage thread to those profiles registered as being 18 or older would not only protect those who are under age, but offer a degree of freedom for those with perhaps more serious questions that are of an intimate nature.
It's not a "bad" idea. IF... you're really that concerned.
Do you still use curse words, Chris?
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 08:11 AM
Several. It's my understanding that should your profile be registered with a birth date that makes you under 18 years of age you can't even see the marriage section. It allows adults to discuss various marital issues without the prying eyes of minors. It's really a common sense approach. Protects minors from being exposed to more mature topics and it allows married adults to freely discuss issues, questions, etc. without being worried that some minor might read their posts.
Can YOU read?
I asked you what forum.
You responded by posting the word "several" therefore you have knowledge of not only knowing one. But you know many. Could you please post these "Christain" forums here which have 18 and older rooms to discuss carnal sins.
Also why aren't you over there wowing them with your total lack of understanding?
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 08:13 AM
There you have it folks. Ndavid has spoken and we all must agree and abide by his convictions, opinions, and conclusions. And no one is permitted to disagree with or have a different approach, else they be slandered as perverts and such. In fact, if you agree with Ndavid, your church will experience fewer affairs, as he clearly implies. Let's all just do things exactly as Ndavid would. There can be no freedom of thought, expression, or opinion unless it agrees with Ndavid's.
All hail Ndavid! LOL
Bro, you need to have your T level checked.
Evang.Benincasa
08-26-2017, 05:19 PM
No, I'm not going down that road. Not my business.
This, however, is the road I intend to travel:
On page 2, post #20, the one that is bothersome to many of the people posting in this thread, I see that it is dated 07-14-2016.
Here's the link:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1440349&postcount=20
However, in this thread:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1446064&postcount=26
you make specific mention of your "fiance". Not wife, but fiance. This post is dated 09-02-2016.
Please reconcile the dates and the data you have provided. In a post dated from July of last year, you mention or refer to several different acts or actions of a clearly sexual nature with your "lady love". Then, in a post dated from September of last year, which is two months after the July 2016 post, you mention that the woman in your life is not a wife, but a fiance.
Point blank:
Were you married to your "lady love" before you made the post from July of last year, even though she was merely your fiance as of two months later?
Dates on the posts kinda odd?
07-14-2016, 02:31 PM Aquila was eating fruit loops in his skin, and 09-02-2016, 07:49 AM his naked cook was his fiance? Get out of town!
TK Burk
08-26-2017, 05:26 PM
On page 2, post #20, the one that is bothersome to many of the people posting in this thread, I see that it is dated 07-14-2016.
Here's the link:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1440349&postcount=20
However, in this thread:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1446064&postcount=26
My fiancé lived in Europe for several years. She lived in Ely (UK), Brussels (Belgium), and Amsterdam (Netherlands). She said that Brussels was very nice, as was Amsterdam. When coming back to the United Stats, she said it was like traveling backwards in time or into a dystopian society overrun with trash, pollution, noise, advertising, and crumbling roads and bridges. She said it shocked her how dirty, run-down, and out of date things are here in the United States.
you make specific mention of your "fiance". Not wife, but fiance. This post is dated 09-02-2016.
Were you married to your "lady love" before you made the post from July of last year, even though she was merely your fiance as of two months later?
:groan
votivesoul
08-26-2017, 10:50 PM
Hey, I can understand if you felt some posts were over the top. I get that. And in retrospect, maybe they were. But you're really going way out there with it. Again, to the point of being very personal in your attacks. Can't you address an issue without trying to personally tear the person you disagree with apart?
Some posts were merely "over the top"? Care to reshare the comments and discussion you and allstate1 had that I deleted?
Evang.Benincasa
08-27-2017, 08:11 AM
Some posts were merely "over the top"? Care to reshare the comments and discussion you and allstate1 had that I deleted?
I hope Aquila will take his own advise to pray and fast.
He is going down a rocky road, which leads to nothing more than a tragic end.
Sad.
Very sad.
Aquila
08-28-2017, 02:11 PM
No, I'm not going down that road. Not my business.
This, however, is the road I intend to travel:
On page 2, post #20, the one that is bothersome to many of the people posting in this thread, I see that it is dated 07-14-2016.
Here's the link:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1440349&postcount=20
However, in this thread:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1446064&postcount=26
you make specific mention of your "fiance". Not wife, but fiance. This post is dated 09-02-2016.
Please reconcile the dates and the data you have provided. In a post dated from July of last year, you mention or refer to several different acts or actions of a clearly sexual nature with your "lady love". Then, in a post dated from September of last year, which is two months after the July 2016 post, you mention that the woman in your life is not a wife, but a fiance.
Point blank:
Were you married to your "lady love" before you made the post from July of last year, even though she was merely your fiance as of two months later?
We had a "Quaker wedding" with friends and family. Afterwards we began considering the civil the marriage option and I began calling her my fiancé again.
Aquila
08-28-2017, 02:16 PM
Aquila, I'm sorry you took my post that way, please forgive me if I offended you. I certainly did not intend to paint you as a depraved pervert or some kind of monster.
I just wish couples would keep private things private. We share too much these days, IMO.
I don't really want to see a pic of the breakfast or dinner you had, either. :lol
:thumbsup
No hard feelings. I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm going to agree with you on this one and keep more private matters private. My intentions were good.
Aquila
08-28-2017, 02:24 PM
Some posts were merely "over the top"? Care to reshare the comments and discussion you and allstate1 had that I deleted?
If memory serves me correctly, thought allstate1's comments were way over the top. I tried to be friendly by telling allstate1 that nothing suggested would end well.
Aquila
08-28-2017, 02:25 PM
I hope Aquila will take his own advise to pray and fast.
He is going down a rocky road, which leads to nothing more than a tragic end.
Sad.
Very sad.
Will you pray with me?
TK Burk
08-28-2017, 06:29 PM
We had a "Quaker wedding" with friends and family. Afterwards we began considering the civil the marriage option and I began calling her my fiancé again.
Since you two chose a "Quaker Marriage", why did you return afterward to calling your wife your "fiancé "? Wasn't the QM a real marriage?
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2017, 06:42 PM
Since you two chose a "Quaker Marriage", why did you return afterward to calling your wife your "fiancé "? Wasn't the QM a real marriage?
His marriage was illegal.
This guy is a mess.
My question is, why in heaven's name did this flake post his naked waffle eating in marriage rejuvenation? He wasn't even married to his girlfriend. This is the same guy who runs all over this forum giving advise. Sweet love of God, who is he kidding. He left the apostolic church and became preaching material. Good grief.
Evang.Benincasa
08-28-2017, 07:34 PM
We had a "Quaker wedding" with friends and family. Afterwards we began considering the civil the marriage option and I began calling her my fiancé again.
Aquila?
Were you legally divorced when you had the Quaker Wedding? Is that the reason you weren't legally married to your girlfriend in the first place?
Aquila
08-28-2017, 10:38 PM
Since you two chose a "Quaker Marriage", why did you return afterward to calling your wife your "fiancé "? Wasn't the QM a real marriage?
There is an entire thread on marriage licensing wherein Quaker tradition is covered in more depth. Traditionally Quakers refused to participate in civil marriage licensing in both England and the United States. Their marriage customs also do not have an officiant. The couple stands before friends and family declaring their desire to marry. A clearness committee counsels them and a date is set. At the wedding, the couple stands together before friends and family and gives their "promises" (Quakers don't perform oaths or vows). They exchange rings (sometimes) and sign a Quaker marriage certificate. If the couple wishes to have their marriage filed with the government, they have a committee member file paperwork with the state. If not, the are considered married in God's eyes and it's done. The clearness committee helps them attain all necessary powers of attorney, wills, etc., to secure most rights of couples in a civil marriage, but the union isn't contracted with the state. They also handle their divorces in house, thereby obeying Paul's admonition not to go before unbelieving courts (I Corinthians 6:1-8).
Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...
"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."
"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."
Today, some Baptist and other fundamentalist churches have similar arrangements that have become known as "Quaker Marriages", based on origin. Some call them "Covenant Marriages" seeing that they are not civil contracts but spiritual covenants.
http://www.truthinliving.org/Marriage_Covenant.php
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/
http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html
So, a Quaker marriage is indeed a real marriage. However, it isn't necessarily a civil marriage under government authority and bound by the civil laws and definitions of the state.
Aquila
08-28-2017, 10:50 PM
His marriage was illegal.
What law was broken?
You're confusing "illegal" (legally prohibited) with "private" (as in, without state involvement).
Quaker marriages, covenant marriages, sovereign Christian marriages, commitment ceremonies, etc. are all terms for such unions.
Oh, these marriages become legally binding in states that still recognize marriage under common law, which is older than civil marriage, which really want popular until after the Emancipation. Remember, the primary reason states began requiring a civil marriage license was to prohibit mixed marriages. When a mixed couple applied for license, they were denied. Mixed couples didn't win the right to the civil marriage license until 1963, Loving s. Virginia.
TK Burk
08-29-2017, 12:23 AM
There is an entire thread on marriage licensing wherein Quaker tradition is covered in more depth. Traditionally Quakers refused to participate in civil marriage licensing in both England and the United States. Their marriage customs also do not have an officiant. The couple stands before friends and family declaring their desire to marry. A clearness committee counsels them and a date is set. At the wedding, the couple stands together before friends and family and gives their "promises" (Quakers don't perform oaths or vows). They exchange rings (sometimes) and sign a Quaker marriage certificate. If the couple wishes to have their marriage filed with the government, they have a committee member file paperwork with the state. If not, the are considered married in God's eyes and it's done. The clearness committee helps them attain all necessary powers of attorney, wills, etc., to secure most rights of couples in a civil marriage, but the union isn't contracted with the state. They also handle their divorces in house, thereby obeying Paul's admonition not to go before unbelieving courts (I Corinthians 6:1-8).
Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...
"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."
"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."
Today, some Baptist and other fundamentalist churches have similar arrangements that have become known as "Quaker Marriages", based on origin. Some call them "Covenant Marriages" seeing that they are not civil contracts but spiritual covenants.
http://www.truthinliving.org/Marriage_Covenant.php
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/
http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html
So, a Quaker marriage is indeed a real marriage. However, it isn't necessarily a civil marriage under government authority and bound by the civil laws and definitions of the state.
I am familiar with the Quaker Marriage, but thanks for the info.
But your response did answer what I asked you, which is this:
Since you two chose a "Quaker Marriage", why did you return afterward to calling your wife your "fiancé "? Wasn't the QM a real marriage?
Aquila
08-29-2017, 06:06 AM
I am familiar with the Quaker Marriage, but thanks for the info.
But your response did answer what I asked you, which is this:
Since you two chose a "Quaker Marriage", why did you return afterward to calling your wife your "fiancé "? Wasn't the QM a real marriage?
I tended to call her my fiance on occasion when we began to seriously consider a civil marriage. So, there was no nefarious agenda involved.
TK Burk
08-29-2017, 11:41 AM
I tended to call her my fiance on occasion when we began to seriously consider a civil marriage. So, there was no nefarious agenda involved.
I'm still not sure what you mean.
If you were "married" according to Quaker custom, wouldn't that make your fiancée now your wife? If that is true, why would you ever return to calling her your "fiancée"?
I've known a few couples that were married in a courthouse who later had a second "church wedding." None of those men went back to calling their courthouse-married-wives their "fiancée."
Since you admittedly returned to calling her "fiancée," did you stop seeing her as your wife until after your civil marriage?
Have the two of you had your civil marriage? If so, do you still "on occasion" call her your fiancée? If not, why? What would be different now that wasn't back during your Quaker marriage?
Aquila
08-29-2017, 02:20 PM
I'm still not sure what you mean.
If you were "married" according to Quaker custom, wouldn't that make your fiancée now your wife? If that is true, why would you ever return to calling her your "fiancée"?
I've known a few couples that were married in a courthouse who later had a second "church wedding." None of those men went back to calling their courthouse-married-wives their "fiancée."
Since you admittedly returned to calling her "fiancée," did you stop seeing her as your wife until after your civil marriage?
Have the two of you had your civil marriage? If so, do you still "on occasion" call her your fiancée? If not, why? What would be different now that wasn't back during your Quaker marriage?
The Quaker wedding was beautiful in its simplicity. And knowing that we were not entangled in the civil marriage system gave us much peace. And we were very much secure in our faith and understanding of being in covenant in God's eyes after the Quaker tradition. However, after Christina's father died and her mother had to work out some legal complications in order to begin receiving a portion of his Social Security, Christina began to have some concern because she won't be able to receive any Social Security from me upon my passing. So, we began tossing around the possibility of going downtown and getting a "civil marriage". During that period we felt like we were in limbo. At times we felt especially blessed to be in a covenant marriage, but at other times we felt that maybe we should consider a civil marriage. And I even proposed a second time to try to cheer her heart, telling her that if she felt the civil marriage was necessary, I'd gladly take her to be my fiancé again. We it was a gushy moment, but that's how that evolved. In the context of our consideration of civil marriage, I called her my fiancé. However, I also never ceased to call her, or consider her, my wife.
Although it is an entirely different tradition, ancient marriage custom is similar in its interchangeable terms. For example, when a couple were betrothed to marry they were said to be espoused or betrothed to one another, or they could also be addressed as husband and wife, even though they were not formally married yet.
So, one can dig up my words to throw stones if they like. I guess I just didn't make a big deal out of it either way.
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2017, 07:50 PM
What law was broken?
You're confusing "illegal" (legally prohibited) with "private" (as in, without state involvement).
Quaker marriages, covenant marriages, sovereign Christian marriages, commitment ceremonies, etc. are all terms for such unions.
Oh, these marriages become legally binding in states that still recognize marriage under common law, which is older than civil marriage, which really want popular until after the Emancipation. Remember, the primary reason states began requiring a civil marriage license was to prohibit mixed marriages. When a mixed couple applied for license, they were denied. Mixed couples didn't win the right to the civil marriage license until 1963, Loving s. Virginia.
You are a hustler. Plain and simple. You had your "Quaker Marriage" and then after a while you start calling her your fiance' again? Chris, the calling her your finance later is the issue. That's the joke, what is even funnier, is that we get to see you fabricate an entire circus act to get around what you got caught in. Bro, you are the sorriest liar I have ever has the misfortune in holding a discussion with.
Were you not divorced from your first wife?
Therefore you came up with an idea to have a make believe marriage outside of a license? Hey, people do that all the time. They don't get a legal divorce, and they end up shaking up with their new found woman. So, were you LEGALLY divorced from your wife when you had the "Quaker Wedding?"
Again, the big water melon drop is that you started calling your new WIFE your fiance again?
Chris, people must talk to you and turn right around and walk away.
Here, you sadly have a captive audience.
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2017, 08:06 PM
The Quaker wedding was beautiful in its simplicity. And knowing that we were not entangled in the civil marriage system gave us much peace. And we were very much secure in our faith and understanding of being in covenant in God's eyes after the Quaker tradition. However, after Christina's father died and her mother had to work out some legal complications in order to begin receiving a portion of his Social Security, Christina began to have some concern because she won't be able to receive any Social Security from me upon my passing. So, we began tossing around the possibility of going downtown and getting a "civil marriage". During that period we felt like we were in limbo. At times we felt especially blessed to be in a covenant marriage, but at other times we felt that maybe we should consider a civil marriage. And I even proposed a second time to try to cheer her heart, telling her that if she felt the civil marriage was necessary, I'd gladly take her to be my fiancé again. We it was a gushy moment, but that's how that evolved. In the context of our consideration of civil marriage, I called her my fiancé. However, I also never ceased to call her, or consider her, my wife.
Although it is an entirely different tradition, ancient marriage custom is similar in its interchangeable terms. For example, when a couple were betrothed to marry they were said to be espoused or betrothed to one another, or they could also be addressed as husband and wife, even though they were not formally married yet.
So, one can dig up my words to throw stones if they like. I guess I just didn't make a big deal out of it either way.
Bro, the point isn't that you were calling her your finance when you were around her. You were calling her your fiance to US. Think about it, my dear Baron von Munchausen. If you literally believed that your girlfriend was your "covenant WIFE" You sure didn't let the rest of the world know that. No, sorry you are filled to the brim with BALONEY. :laffatu
Bro, no one should even consider not one syllable from your lips, or finger tips. You are so banged up it isn't even funny anymore.
You could of come clean and explained the truth of the matter.
But, no, as Chris/Aquila style, you chose you defend the indefensible.
You got caught, and you lied a mile long.
TK Burk
08-29-2017, 08:19 PM
The Quaker wedding was beautiful in its simplicity. And knowing that we were not entangled in the civil marriage system gave us much peace. And we were very much secure in our faith and understanding of being in covenant in God's eyes after the Quaker tradition. However, after Christina's father died and her mother had to work out some legal complications in order to begin receiving a portion of his Social Security, Christina began to have some concern because she won't be able to receive any Social Security from me upon my passing. So, we began tossing around the possibility of going downtown and getting a "civil marriage". During that period we felt like we were in limbo. At times we felt especially blessed to be in a covenant marriage, but at other times we felt that maybe we should consider a civil marriage. And I even proposed a second time to try to cheer her heart, telling her that if she felt the civil marriage was necessary, I'd gladly take her to be my fiancé again. We it was a gushy moment, but that's how that evolved. In the context of our consideration of civil marriage, I called her my fiancé. However, I also never ceased to call her, or consider her, my wife.
Although it is an entirely different tradition, ancient marriage custom is similar in its interchangeable terms. For example, when a couple were betrothed to marry they were said to be espoused or betrothed to one another, or they could also be addressed as husband and wife, even though they were not formally married yet.
So, one can dig up my words to throw stones if they like. I guess I just didn't make a big deal out of it either way.
You didn't actually answer all I asked.
I do have one question: did you and your fiancée ever get your "civil marriage"?
Evang.Benincasa
08-29-2017, 08:19 PM
And I even proposed a second time to try to cheer her heart, telling her that if she felt the civil marriage was necessary, I'd gladly take her to be my fiancé again.
She needed to be cheered up? I guess she wasn't swallowing you "covenant" hokum.
TK Burk
08-29-2017, 08:23 PM
Yes and no. A common law marriage entered into in Ohio before October 10, l991 constitutes a valid, legal marriage in Ohio. On October 10, l991, Ohio abolished common law marriage. After that date, no new common law marriages can be formed.
Ohio Marriage FAQs | DivorceNet
www.divorcenet.com/states/ohio/ohfaq01
Aquila
08-30-2017, 08:12 AM
You are a hustler. Plain and simple. You had your "Quaker Marriage" and then after a while you start calling her your fiance' again?
EB, you're coloring the water. I didn't just start calling her my fiancé again. We were in the midst of considering a civil marriage based on how she was feeling. You do know that deliberate misrepresentation of this circumstance to suit your desire to slander me is a form of LYING don't you?
Chris, the calling her your finance later is the issue. That's the joke, what is even funnier, is that we get to see you fabricate an entire circus act to get around what you got caught in. Bro, you are the sorriest liar I have ever has the misfortune in holding a discussion with.
I've talked about this stuff extensively in several threads.
Is personally attacking me over and over again on a daily basis making you feel better about something none of us are aware of?
Aquila
08-30-2017, 08:16 AM
Bro, the point isn't that you were calling her your finance when you were around her. You were calling her your fiance to US. Think about it, my dear Baron von Munchausen. If you literally believed that your girlfriend was your "covenant WIFE" You sure didn't let the rest of the world know that. No, sorry you are filled to the brim with BALONEY. :laffatu
I didn't just start calling her my fiancé again out of the blue. We were in the midst of considering a civil marriage based on how she was feeling. You do know that deliberate misrepresentation of this circumstance to suit your desire to slander me is a form of LYING don't you?
Bro, no one should even consider not one syllable from your lips, or finger tips. You are so banged up it isn't even funny anymore.
If you thought I was banged up, and you were a true Apostolic Christian, you'd seek to heal, mend, help, and minister to me. You're just a blow hard that continually spews insults and condemnation on anything that moves to make yourself feel better about yourself.
You could of come clean and explained the truth of the matter.
But, no, as Chris/Aquila style, you chose you defend the indefensible.
You got caught, and you lied a mile long.
Um, I explained the issue. What gives? You want me to make something up?
Aquila
08-30-2017, 08:23 AM
You didn't actually answer all I asked.
I do have one question: did you and your fiancée ever get your "civil marriage"?
Not yet. Her mother had a stroke and we've been focused on her care. We're trying to get her into an assisted living facility because of her condition. She's forgetting to pay bills, double paying others, forgetting her meds, and getting hurt in her home. When dealing with the bank we found out that Christina's father is still listed as being on the mortgage and we're in the midst of getting it legally removed.
I've suggested that we elope. She's wanting a second wedding when that time comes.
TK Burk, I want to thank you for being kind and understanding in this discussion, even if you disagree with elements of my choices.
Aquila
08-30-2017, 08:28 AM
She needed to be cheered up? I guess she wasn't swallowing you "covenant" hokum.
Okay, you crossed the line.
I explained that she had lost her father and her mother had a complication with claiming her entitlement to a portion of his Social Security. In the wake of her FATHER'S DEATH she was reflecting upon this and wondered about what would happen to us if we didn't have a civil marriage. She wasn't feeling down over our arrangement. She had a legitimate concern in the wake of losing her father.
And you take this and use it as a weapon to continue slandering me???
Aquila
08-30-2017, 08:34 AM
Yes and no. A common law marriage entered into in Ohio before October 10, l991 constitutes a valid, legal marriage in Ohio. On October 10, l991, Ohio abolished common law marriage. After that date, no new common law marriages can be formed.
Ohio Marriage FAQs | DivorceNet
www.divorcenet.com/states/ohio/ohfaq01
I know. Nevertheless, it isn't illegal for Quakers, or any other Christian, to form a union that isn't a civil marriage. If you want your marriage private (an arrangement outside of government definition and control) instead of civil (a union recognized and defined by the government subject to government control), you have to secure your rights privately through wills and powers of attorney.
Let me emphasize that no laws are broken.
Aquila
08-30-2017, 09:10 AM
Evang.Benincasa,
You've continually stalked me, harassed me, insulted me, slandered me, mocked me, and misrepresented me.
What do you want? Just say it.
Let's end this foolishness and tell me what it will take for you to calm down and actually talk with me rationally? In most forums you'd already be banned for such personal attacks and near menacing behavior. I honestly don't know why the admins here haven't at least asked you to be more civil. I've requested that they do so, but nothing became of it. And that's their prerogative I guess. They can do as they wish.
Look, I'm not an evangelist. Although I thought I was called for a time and became involved with ministry, I'm no longer interested in being a minister of any kind. I'm just an average Joe. And you're also right, I'm a mess. I don't profess to be perfect. In fact, I've spoken freely about many of my imperfections and less than ideal circumstances. Trust me, I could have chosen not to say a word about me or my life. I could have hidden in anonymity and pretended that all was well. But I didn't. All my contradictions, imperfections, sin, fears, concerns, failures, hurt, experiences, wounds, scars, etc... most of me is laid out in the open. In fact, I've put enough out here on this forum about me, I've sealed the coffin on any opportunity to minister ever again. In fact, you've kind of helped me in that. And for that I'm really grateful. But I'm now growing weary with your endless attacks. Why don't we just settle things like rational people? I'm right here.
And let me assure you, I am a joke. I'm not important. I don't have an office or position in any church. And as previously said, I'm a mess. You're the "evangelist". You're the dude in a shirt and tie with a mission. You've been called to some real important stuff. In fact, you've even appointed yourself as my own personal judge and jury. So, let's stop wasting time. What is it....?
What do you want?
What is your goal in all of this non-stop harassment?
What do you want from me?
What is it that you hope all of this will accomplish?
Please drop the insults and just talk to me. What are you needing from me to end this endless war between us?
Are you wanting to somehow get me to renounce my faith? Are you wanting me to pray through and become you find acceptable? Are you wanting me to leave the forum? Are you wanting me feel so emotionally damaged that I jump off of a bridge somewhere? Are you just testing my resolve? Are you just incapable of controlling yourself? Is personally insulting me non-stop just something you simply get enjoyment from? Are you wanting me to change political parties? Are you wanting me to be converted to Preterism?
Once you tell me, I can think things over and determine if what you're wanting is within my ability.
What do you want? What is your goal in all of this?
You have my undivided attention.
Evang.Benincasa
08-30-2017, 09:30 PM
Evang.Benincasa,
You've continually stalked me, harassed me, insulted me, slandered me, mocked me, and misrepresented me.
Don't play nieve, no one stalks you. Like I had mentioned in another thread. The thread where you said everyone who flies the flag of Dixie should be hung for treason. Listen, no one is stalking you or are obsessed with you. You make yourself the lighting rod. You come to a Christain forum, Apostolic and you love to go over the top. So, save the fasle shock of someone taking the time to disrupt your time of wanting to hold court.
What do you want? Just say it.
I have said it over and over again. Take your own advise poser.
Do I have to repeat those three things which you originally said you were going to take time and do.
Let's end this foolishness and tell me what it will take for you to calm down and actually talk with me rationally?
I am talking rationally. Do you believe that the tares have sweet fellowship with the wheat? Certainly not. Chris, you need to get yourself straightened out. You live in Ohio? Don't you live in Ohio? There isn't common law marriages in Ohio. You also aren't a Quaker, so the Quaker wedding was a farce. Your girlfriend has to schlep it to your sabbath keeping house church and pretend she is married to you. Do the elders in your congregation now that you and your girlfriend aren't really married?
In most forums you'd already be banned for such personal attacks and near menacing behavior.
Chris, most forums would of banned you for making the comments you did about me being burned by my stepmother as a child. So, save it. You aren't the trembling barefoot pious saint, robed in saffron leading your white bull to your ivory monastery. Even when MawMaw gave her view of you, you jumped her. Chris, your problem is that you can't take what you dish out.
I honestly don't know why the admins here haven't at least asked you to be more civil. I've requested that they do so, but nothing became of it. And that's their prerogative I guess. They can do as they wish.
Because coming from you, it must of made them throw back their heads with laughter. They might even fell to the floor and rolled around holding their stomachs. Did you complain before or after you associated my being dragged to a lit stove and being burned with child discipline? Chris, do you have moments of amnesia? Do you happen to realize that this forum has a huge amount of your postings which make mine pale in comparisons. That you have posters who officially placed you on the pay no mind list? Now, we find out that you are just living with your girlfriend playing house? Yet, you want to spend time in a thread where you instruct a female about spiritual strongholds? You must be mad. Bro, find Jesus Christ the one true living God. The fellowship is either condoning your live in relationship, or they don't even know. If they don't know, why don't they?
Look, I'm not an evangelist. [/quoter]
For a good reason my man. I mean what in heaven's name would you tell young people? That they should live with their girlfriends? What kind of example would you set? No, no one needs a preacher who has a mile long excuse for why he is living with his girlfriend, and playing house. Not only playing house but sitting around naked eating Fruit Loops.
[QUOTE=Aquila;1498268]
though I thought I was called for a time and became involved with ministry, I'm no longer interested in being a minister of any kind.
It looks like everything is make believe to you. A calling is just that, you are called by God. Not by you, it isn't something like you want to collect butterflies, or stamps. No one is called for a time. Yet, you couldn't be a minister. Unless you wanted to be in the Moses David Berg's Children of God.
I'm just an average Joe. And you're also right, I'm a mess. I don't profess to be perfect. In fact, I've spoken freely about many of my imperfections and less than ideal circumstances. Trust me, I could have chosen not to say a word about me or my life. I could have hidden in anonymity and pretended that all was well. But I didn't. All my contradictions, imperfections, sin, fears, concerns, failures, hurt, experiences, wounds, scars, etc... most of me is laid out in the open. In fact, I've put enough out here on this forum about me, I've sealed the coffin on any opportunity to minister ever again. In fact, you've kind of helped me in that. And for that I'm really grateful. But I'm now growing weary with your endless attacks. Why don't we just settle things like rational people? I'm right here.
Chris, strength is never a weakness. So the above needs to be considered only by you. You need to take your own advise, and heal thyself. I can literally line a city street with people who parrot the very same words. They move ever so gently, telling everyone they are full of mess, sinners to the raging core. Yet, saved by grace, as you listen to them, you could swear you hear the shuffle of angel's feet. But when the preacher tells them to get back on track and live right through the power of the cross they refuse. Because they are more focused on sin, then repentance. They aren't struggling, they are flat out refusing to get right. Bro, the wheat never massage the tares, or look to have a lovely time of chatting while you destroy yourself and others. Ever heard, real friends don't let friends dive drunk? I'm not going to stand around while you make believe, and just let you walk off the cliff with people following you.
And let me assure you, I am a joke. I'm not important. I don't have an office or position in any church. And as previously said, I'm a mess. You're the "evangelist". You're the dude in a shirt and tie with a mission. You've been called to some real important stuff. In fact, you've even appointed yourself as my own personal judge and jury. So, let's stop wasting time. What is it....?
What do you want?
What is your goal in all of this non-stop harassment?
What do you want from me?
What is it that you hope all of this will accomplish?
Please drop the insults and just talk to me. What are you needing from me to end this endless war between us?
Are you wanting to somehow get me to renounce my faith? Are you wanting me to pray through and become you find acceptable? Are you wanting me to leave the forum? Are you wanting me feel so emotionally damaged that I jump off of a bridge somewhere? Are you just testing my resolve? Are you just incapable of controlling yourself? Is personally insulting me non-stop just something you simply get enjoyment from? Are you wanting me to change political parties? Are you wanting me to be converted to Preterism?
Once you tell me, I can think things over and determine if what you're wanting is within my ability.
What do you want? What is your goal in all of this?
You have my undivided attention.
But I don't have your undivided attention. Because you're a professional at snow jobs. You must live post to post. Thinking that no one will remember your escapades? I have repeated myself to you, even when you took advantage of a testimony of my childhood, and used it for revenge. you crawfished out of responsibility with that one. As you did with your creepy comment concerning the flag of Dixie.
I'll say it for the twentieth time, you need to take your own advise Chris.
Save yourself from yourself.
Do what you said you would do
Amanah
08-31-2017, 04:17 AM
Brother Aquila, There isn't anything more precious than the souls of your family. Time passes, children grow up, and all the selfish things that we do come back to confront us in the form of regrets. Forgive me for being candid in my thoughts, let me just say that I've been praying for you and to me it seems simple. Legally marry your wife, take your family to an apostolic church, be still, sit and listen and find God's direction. Give your family every chance to be saved because it really isn't about you. Turn off the news, the media, the world and seek the face of God for your family.
Evang.Benincasa
08-31-2017, 04:57 AM
Brother Aquila, There isn't anything more precious than the souls of your family. Time passes, children grow up, and all the selfish things that we do come back to confront us in the form of regrets. Forgive me for being candid in my thoughts, let me just say that I've been praying for you and to me it seems simple. Legally marry your wife, take your family to an apostolic church, be still, sit and listen and find God's direction. Give your family every chance to be saved because it really isn't about you. Turn off the news, the media, the world and seek the face of God for your family.
Aquila, this is the simplicity of the whole matter.
Instead of focusing on how messed up you are, and reveling in that condition.
Take Sister Amanah's advise, and your own concerning a time of prayer, fasting, and getting soaked in the word.
Aquila
08-31-2017, 08:23 AM
Don't play nieve, no one stalks you. Like I had mentioned in another thread. The thread where you said everyone who flies the flag of Dixie should be hung for treason. Listen, no one is stalking you or are obsessed with you. You make yourself the lighting rod. You come to a Christain forum, Apostolic and you love to go over the top. So, save the fasle shock of someone taking the time to disrupt your time of wanting to hold court.
You still take the hanging statement seriously? LOL
Well, I guess we know who is waving the Dixie flag around here. LOL
Do I have to repeat those three things which you originally said you were going to take time and do.
I've done this, and still you don't stop. I after much prayer the past two weeks I've already chosen to change direction in several things in my life. And yet you keep digging up old bones and throwing them at me every day. You don't know me. You have convinced yourself that you do. But in reality, you don't know "me". You're so concerned with my performance that you're not considering me as a person. Please, STOP.
I am talking rationally. Do you believe that the tares have sweet fellowship with the wheat? Certainly not. Chris, you need to get yourself straightened out. You live in Ohio? Don't you live in Ohio? There isn't common law marriages in Ohio. You also aren't a Quaker, so the Quaker wedding was a farce. Your girlfriend has to schlep it to your sabbath keeping house church and pretend she is married to you. Do the elders in your congregation now that you and your girlfriend aren't really married?
My grandmother was a member of the Church of Christ, but my step-grandfather was a Quaker. They were never formerly married either. However, their marriage qualified as a legal common law marriage. My mother was in a civil marriage with my biological father. But after he returned from Nam, the issues he struggled with and the death of brother destroyed their marriage. Mom chose to never remarry. And even though mom had become a Pentecostal when I was 12, she said that if she ever did remarry she'd consider a marriage in care of a meeting. I understand Quaker ways. I and find them to have far more spiritual depth than the "bang-clang" superficiality and legalism of modern Pentecostalism. The old timers of Pentecost fascinate and inspire me. Those who are just trying to imitate them don't. I agree with Pentecostalism in that I'm Oneness, I believe in Acts 2:38, and I believe in the gifts of the Spirit. My point is, although I'm not a Quaker, Quaker ways are not alien to me.
It's important to note, that Quakers married under common law since they were accused of "living in sin" back in England. And it is Quaker conviction that while the state may change its laws (and it is free to do so), it doesn't change God. If God blessed and united a woman in marriage without officiant or agent of the state in the 1600's, He does it today. Even if the state refuses to recognize it. George Fox stated:
"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669
As for my house church, our statement of faith reads under Rights and Privileges, D through G:
D. An Elder does not need to be licensed in order to lead his own family, nor does he need to be licensed if his work expands beyond his own household.
E. This fellowship reserves the right to function as a religious network of Christian believers without government intervention and regulation. Since we receive our authority from God and not from man, we will not seek to be recognized by any body of civil government as an officially incorporated institution. Elders are not to be licensed by any state or government body.
F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within this fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings.
G. We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home schooling
Seeing that our fellowship isn't incorporated with the state, and seeing that our elders aren't licensed with the state, our elders do not act as agents of the state in marriage. Legally speaking, they couldn't sign a civil marriage certificate if they wanted to. Our elders bless couples and conduct commitment ceremonies that recognize the spiritual covenant between a man and a woman. If a couple desires to have their union blessed by the government, they are free to consult a Justice of the Peace.
For a good reason my man. I mean what in heaven's name would you tell young people? That they should live with their girlfriends? What kind of example would you set? No, no one needs a preacher who has a mile long excuse for why he is living with his girlfriend, and playing house.
What those who do not participate in civil licensing of marriage have been teaching their young people for centuries. You're so caught up in this world EB. It's glitz, it's glamour, it's power structures. You think licensing makes you something special. You think if something is licensed with the government it is real, and if it isn't licensed with the government it's fake. Here you betray yourself. You reveal that your God is human government and incorporated power structures of religion. My friend, none of that is eternal. You really think the constructs around you are of God? Do you believe that God is aligned with all the incorporation, licensing, etc., etc.? Do you think God blesses "civil marriages" when the laws government them are not only unbiblical, but are Hell bent on embracing the ways of Sodom? We don't. To us being "separate" from the world (holy) is far more than a dress code (because that's all you have). It is a manner of living. We believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Therefore, it is God who joins a man and woman in marriage, not Caesar. Now, that couple can go before Caesar and ask him to recognize their union for government benefits if they choose. But we do not see them as being bound to do so.
A calling is just that, you are called by God. Not by you, it isn't something like you want to collect butterflies, or stamps. No one is called for a time. Yet, you couldn't be a minister. Unless you wanted to be in the Moses David Berg's Children of God.
I believe that people can be called for a time and season to serve a purpose. Just because a man was called to preach (as you understand it) for a few years doesn't mean he's called to preach his entire life long or as a vocation. I was called for a season. That season is OVER. And I'm not going to allow another man to bait me with the hopes and dreams of ministry to keep me on the hook and line waiting for the day that never comes ever again. It's a manipulation tactic. And I have insulated my self from that bondage.
TO BE CONTINUED
Aquila
08-31-2017, 08:23 AM
CONTINUED
Chris, strength is never a weakness. So the above needs to be considered only by you. You need to take your own advise, and heal thyself.
I can literally line a city street with people who parrot the very same words. They move ever so gently, telling everyone they are full of mess, sinners to the raging core. Yet, saved by grace, as you listen to them, you could swear you hear the shuffle of angel's feet. But when the preacher tells them to get back on track and live right through the power of the cross they refuse. Because they are more focused on sin, then repentance. They aren't struggling, they are flat out refusing to get right. Bro, the wheat never massage the tares, or look to have a lovely time of chatting while you destroy yourself and others. Ever heard, real friends don't let friends dive drunk? I'm not going to stand around while you make believe, and just let you walk off the cliff with people following you.
If you were really concerned with my spiritual welfare you wouldn't be openly harassing me and slandering me publically. Previous generations might have been given to such social pressure. My generation sees this as a tactic employed by the weak and cowardly. If you're brave and your motives pure, consult me privately. I might have taken you seriously if you conversed with me in private message. But the spectacle you've made it out in the open only shows that you're out for slander and defamation. You couldn't care less about my soul. This is how I know that you're only a lair, a fake, and an abuser.
In addition based on what you have expressed to me since I've known you, to "get right", would include:
1.) Sobbing in a blithering mess under your watchful eye in a prayer room.
2.) Becoming a conservative Republican.
3.) Renouncing any concern for social justice.
4.) Denying the notion that some might need psychological care.
5.) Denying that PTSD even exists.
6.) Demanding that my wife not work or peruse any of her dreams.
7.) Entering a civil contract with the state that binds my marriage to being governed by unbiblical laws.
8.) Raising my kids in a bubble of religious isolation.
9.) Attending some artificial structure filled with bang-clang music and sycophants that pander to a single man in a suit.
10.) Sit in a row of noses every Sunday.
11.) Pay my tithes to the man in the suit.
12.) Dress and live exactly as the man in the suit tells me.
13.) And claim all of this makes me holier than those who don't do these things.
Only after I did these things would you think I had "gotten right". And I find the above to be pure foolishness.
Aquila
08-31-2017, 09:04 AM
Concerning civil marriage: The only thing that caused us to consider a civil marriage was being able to claim the other's Social Security. We'd both had civil marriages before. We were the faithful parties in each. Yet the civil court system raked us over the coals and cost each of us thousands of dollars to line the pockets of divorce attorneys. I even had to prove that I wasn't secretly taking my son to the church my wife and I served in else she was going to fight my having joint custody of my son on the grounds of it being an abusive cult. The civil marriage system doesn't demand grounds for divorce as the Bible requires. It doesn't prohibit remarriage for unfaithful parties. It doesn't concern itself with who was wronged and who wasn't and penalize the unfaithful one. It blesses Sodomites and marries them in the eyes of the state. It threatens Christian parents with losing child custody. It is known to turn and financially oppresses the innocent party in a divorce and reward the guilty party. Why in God's name would any real Christian bring their union under such a binding contract???
I tend to agree with GotQuestions.org:
Question: "What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-constitutes.html
The end of the article sums it up:
So, what constitutes marriage in God’s eyes? It would seem that the following principles should be followed: 1) As long as the requirements are reasonable and not against the Bible, a man and a woman should seek whatever formal governmental recognition is available. 2) A man and a woman should follow whatever cultural, familial, and covenantal practices are typically employed to recognize a couple as “officially married.” 3) If possible, a man and a woman should consummate the marriage sexually, fulfilling the physical aspect of the “one flesh” principle.
What if one or more of these principles are not fulfilled? Is such a couple still considered married in God’s eyes? Ultimately, that is between the couple and God. God knows our hearts (1 John 3:20). God knows the difference between a true marriage covenant and an attempt to justify sexual immorality.
In my opinion, the civil laws governing marriage bind a Christian marriage to an unbiblical body of laws. Since the government allows for "no fault" divorce, it offers far more liability than security. It also binds a Christian to have to go before unbelieving courts to settle marriage disputes and divorce. So, point number "1" cannot be fulfilled in a civil marriage.
Culturally speaking, over half of couples in our culture form unions and cohabitate, refusing to put their relationships under this body of law. Various groups of Quakers, Amish, German Baptist, etc, have seen this and refuse to subject their marriages to the civil law system. So, as it relates to culture, unions outside of the civil marriage laws are not uncommon or illegal. So point number "2" isn't of concern.
Point number "3" is not a problem for any couple who is in love and passionate about their union.
So, I do believe that a couple can be married in God's eyes outside of a civil contract with the government.
I'm not alone in my opinion. Here are some CONSERVATIVE quotes about marriage and how it should or can be blessed apart from the government:
"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." ~ Ron Paul
"The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." ~ Ron Paul
"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella
"Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella
"As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella
"When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible... Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella
"Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriage with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days." ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law." ~ Society of Friends, Faith and Practice
This manner of living was around long before I came to understand it. And so, just because you don't agree, it doesn't mean that you're right. In fact, I contend that it means that you feel the state legitimizes your authority on the matter. And that means you rely on something other than God.
So, you can believe we're not married in the eyes of God if you wish. But it doesn't mean that you're right. And if I'm right in keeping my marriage free from being chained to a corrupt system of marriage laws, maybe I'm not half as "messed up" as you think I am.
At the end of the day, it is the government's abandonment of biblical principles regarding marriage that has made civil marriage so undesirable to so many couples.
There's an old saying. It states, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Both of us have already been to the civil marriage rodeo. It didn't protect our marriages or our interests one bit. In fact, it didn't prove to be anything but pure hell in the legal battles that were waged to be free from unfaithful and abusive spouses. That's not God's will. Regarding an apostate or unbelieving spouse wishing to leave a marriage Paul wrote,
1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Paul didn't tell them to go to Roman courts and get a divorce. Paul didn't tell them to endure months or years of legal battles to be free of an unfaithful spouse. Paul didn't tell them to spend thousands of dollars to protect themselves from being exploited by a corrupt system of secular civil marriage law. Paul simply said, "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart". Let them go. Let them leave. Goodbye. Over. Done. In addition to this, Paul also states that the saint of God is no longer under bondage to that covenant in such cases, and that God has called us to peace... not a legal war. In fact, Paul admonishes Christians NOT to settle disputes in the unbelieving courts of this world:
1 Corinthians 6:1-8 King James Version (KJV)
6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
We're to take our issues and disputes to the saints of God, not the courts of law. If an unfaithful, apostate, or unbelieving spouse departs, and the church cannot help to save the relationship, we are to just let them go and move on in the Lord. We are no longer under bondage to that covenant.
So, if there is a marriage "farce", the only real "farce" is civil marriage.
Instead of calling a marriage outside of civil law "Quaker marriage", one could call such a marriage a "Pauline Marriage".
Evang.Benincasa
09-01-2017, 10:16 PM
Aquila. were you legally divorced from your wife before you started living with your girlfriend?
Evang.Benincasa
09-01-2017, 10:17 PM
Yes and no. A common law marriage entered into in Ohio before October 10, l991 constitutes a valid, legal marriage in Ohio. On October 10, l991, Ohio abolished common law marriage. After that date, no new common law marriages can be formed.
Ohio Marriage FAQs | DivorceNet
www.divorcenet.com/states/ohio/ohfaq01
Aquila there is NO common law marriages in Ohio.
So, you are just living with your girlfriend.
TK Burk
09-03-2017, 09:39 AM
Brother Aquila, There isn't anything more precious than the souls of your family. Time passes, children grow up, and all the selfish things that we do come back to confront us in the form of regrets. Forgive me for being candid in my thoughts, let me just say that I've been praying for you and to me it seems simple. Legally marry your wife, take your family to an apostolic church, be still, sit and listen and find God's direction. Give your family every chance to be saved because it really isn't about you. Turn off the news, the media, the world and seek the face of God for your family.
Amen! :thumbsup
TK Burk
09-03-2017, 10:16 AM
You're so caught up in this world EB. It's glitz, it's glamour, it's power structures. You think licensing makes you something special. You think if something is licensed with the government it is real, and if it isn't licensed with the government it's fake. Here you betray yourself. You reveal that your God is human government and incorporated power structures of religion. My friend, none of that is eternal. You really think the constructs around you are of God? Do you believe that God is aligned with all the incorporation, licensing, etc., etc.? Do you think God blesses "civil marriages" when the laws government them are not only unbiblical, but are Hell bent on embracing the ways of Sodom? We don't. To us being "separate" from the world (holy) is far more than a dress code (because that's all you have). It is a manner of living. We believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Therefore, it is God who joins a man and woman in marriage, not Caesar. Now, that couple can go before Caesar and ask him to recognize their union for government benefits if they choose. But we do not see them as being bound to do so.
Oh, my! The above RED statement is one of the funniest things I've seen said about Bro. Benincasa in a long time! :slaphappy
Believe me, Aquila, you REALLY have no idea who Bro. Benincasa is if you seriously believe what you said above.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 12:58 PM
Oh, my! The above RED statement is one of the funniest things I've seen said about Bro. Benincasa in a long time! :slaphappy
Believe me, Aquila, you REALLY have no idea who Bro. Benincasa is if you seriously believe what you said above.
Thank Brother Burk.
Aquila is confused about how Paul thought about government.
If it weren't for his Freeborn Roman citizenship, he wouldn't of survived long enough to write his epistles.
So, Aquila how'd you get divorced?
Evang.Benincasa,
You've continually stalked me, harassed me, insulted me, slandered me, mocked me, and misrepresented me.
What do you want? Just say it.
Let's end this foolishness and tell me what it will take for you to calm down and actually talk with me rationally? In most forums you'd already be banned for such personal attacks and near menacing behavior. I honestly don't know why the admins here haven't at least asked you to be more civil. I've requested that they do so, but nothing became of it. And that's their prerogative I guess. They can do as they wish.
Look, I'm not an evangelist. Although I thought I was called for a time and became involved with ministry, I'm no longer interested in being a minister of any kind. I'm just an average Joe. And you're also right, I'm a mess. I don't profess to be perfect. In fact, I've spoken freely about many of my imperfections and less than ideal circumstances. Trust me, I could have chosen not to say a word about me or my life. I could have hidden in anonymity and pretended that all was well. But I didn't. All my contradictions, imperfections, sin, fears, concerns, failures, hurt, experiences, wounds, scars, etc... most of me is laid out in the open. In fact, I've put enough out here on this forum about me, I've sealed the coffin on any opportunity to minister ever again. In fact, you've kind of helped me in that. And for that I'm really grateful. But I'm now growing weary with your endless attacks. Why don't we just settle things like rational people? I'm right here.
And let me assure you, I am a joke. I'm not important. I don't have an office or position in any church. And as previously said, I'm a mess. You're the "evangelist". You're the dude in a shirt and tie with a mission. You've been called to some real important stuff. In fact, you've even appointed yourself as my own personal judge and jury. So, let's stop wasting time. What is it....?
What do you want?
What is your goal in all of this non-stop harassment?
What do you want from me?
What is it that you hope all of this will accomplish?
Please drop the insults and just talk to me. What are you needing from me to end this endless war between us?
Are you wanting to somehow get me to renounce my faith? Are you wanting me to pray through and become you find acceptable? Are you wanting me to leave the forum? Are you wanting me feel so emotionally damaged that I jump off of a bridge somewhere? Are you just testing my resolve? Are you just incapable of controlling yourself? Is personally insulting me non-stop just something you simply get enjoyment from? Are you wanting me to change political parties? Are you wanting me to be converted to Preterism?
Once you tell me, I can think things over and determine if what you're wanting is within my ability.
What do you want? What is your goal in all of this?
You have my undivided attention.
He wants War. And you are a man of peace.
CONTINUED
If you were really concerned with my spiritual welfare you wouldn't be openly harassing me and slandering me publically. Previous generations might have been given to such social pressure. My generation sees this as a tactic employed by the weak and cowardly. If you're brave and your motives pure, consult me privately. I might have taken you seriously if you conversed with me in private message. But the spectacle you've made it out in the open only shows that you're out for slander and defamation. You couldn't care less about my soul. This is how I know that you're only a lair, a fake, and an abuser.
In addition based on what you have expressed to me since I've known you, to "get right", would include:
1.) Sobbing in a blithering mess under your watchful eye in a prayer room.
2.) Becoming a conservative Republican.
3.) Renouncing any concern for social justice.
4.) Denying the notion that some might need psychological care.
5.) Denying that PTSD even exists.
6.) Demanding that my wife not work or peruse any of her dreams.
7.) Entering a civil contract with the state that binds my marriage to being governed by unbiblical laws.
8.) Raising my kids in a bubble of religious isolation.
9.) Attending some artificial structure filled with bang-clang music and sycophants that pander to a single man in a suit.
10.) Sit in a row of noses every Sunday.
11.) Pay my tithes to the man in the suit.
12.) Dress and live exactly as the man in the suit tells me.
13.) And claim all of this makes me holier than those who don't do these things.
Only after I did these things would you think I had "gotten right". And I find the above to be pure foolishness. I am still looking for a verse in which folks were married by the apostles or other disciples in the first century Church
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 08:40 PM
So, divorce doesn't need any officiation either?
Just walk out and find another woman.
It is governed by the Law. It will be judged by the Law.
The saints (which are not under the Law), are not bound at the departure of the unbelieving spouse(which is bound by the Law).
If a saint has loused their marriage up, they can make it right by this....
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
And spend your life bearing these fruits....
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 09:19 PM
Sean you believe that a spouse can walk out on another spouse and then go live with another mate?
Interesting.
If they repent and begin to walk in the Spirit. They can be saved.
If the Spirit tells them to leave their current mate, then they must.
If not, then they must not.
This is a tough subject, but factual for today.....
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
But the SPIRITUAL saints are this....
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 09:59 PM
Pretty convenient theology you have.
So, legally being divorced shouldn't be an issue or a hindrance.
They can just be living with someone else and still have state documentation that they are "state" recognized as married to another?
Mighty interesting.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:02 PM
But the SPIRITUAL saints are this....
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
This isn't about a spouse leaving their spouse to live with another.
more....
Paul gives an "out" to Spiritual, abandoned saints though.....
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. ...
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:04 PM
This is a tough subject, but factual for today.....
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
So, you believe that a woman can leave a living husband and be with another man?
Pretty convenient theology you have.
So, legally being divorced shouldn't be an issue or a hindrance.
They can just be living with someone else and still have state documentation that they are "state" recognized as married to another?
Mighty interesting.
I will not judge my brother and neither will you.
I speak for scripture only in the matter. If Aquila is Spiritual, the Lord will direct him.
There are thousands of different scenarios in this subject and it is impossible to judge a particular case.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:07 PM
I will not judge my brother and neither will you.
I speak for scripture only in the matter. If Aquila is Spiritual, the Lord will direct him.
There are thousands of different scenarios in this subject and it is impossible to judge a particular case.
You didn't answer my question.
So, legally being divorced shouldn't be an issue or a hindrance.
They can just be living with someone else and still have state documentation that they are "state" recognized as married to another?
So, you believe that a woman can leave a living husband and be with another man?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
No. The Law says no.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:10 PM
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
No. The Law says no.
Are you saying that if a spouse is an unbeliever than they can leave, but they can be remarried to another?
You didn't answer my question.
So, legally being divorced shouldn't be an issue or a hindrance.
They can just be living with someone else and still have state documentation that they are "state" recognized as married to another?
Did Abraham/Sarai have a state recognized marriage?
I dont care of a modern persons details.
I call that online gossip.
You should refrain from that and get saved, DB.:nod
Are you saying that if a spouse is an unbeliever than they can leave, but they can be remarried to another?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
No, they are under the Law.
Believers that are walking in the Spirit do not leave their spouse, except for adultery against them.
In this case, their marriage has been defiled and they are not bound.....
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:19 PM
Did Abraham/Sarai have a state recognized marriage?
I dont care of a modern persons details.
I call that online gossip.
You should refrain from that and get saved, DB.:nod
Marriages in the ancient world were agreed upon by the tribe, the elders, and the most of all the parents. So, yes, it was a state recognized marriage. Do you understand the process in a bill of divorcement?
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:19 PM
Believers that are walking in the Spirit do not leave their spouse, except for adultery against them.
In this case, their marriage has been defiled and they are not bound.....
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
You just said that a believer can leave an unbeliever because they believed that God TOLD THEM to do so.
Fake news, the unbeliever departs, then the believer is not bound to the unbeliever.
Marriages in the ancient world were agreed upon by the tribe, the elders, and the most of all the parents. So, yes, it was a state recognized marriage. Do you understand the process in a bill of divorcement?
What state recognized Abraham's wedding to Sarai?
Can you provide a document?
What state recognized the marriages before the flood?
votivesoul
09-03-2017, 10:27 PM
Abraham wasn't governed by the New Covenant found in the blood of the Messiah. He's not really a candidate for figuring out marital norms and regulations for the 21st century.
votivesoul
09-03-2017, 10:29 PM
Samson wanted a wife from the Philistines. We are told it was from the LORD.
This is not carte blanche, however, to marry unbelievers, because one time God sent one of His judges down this path.
In this way, we realize that trying to use many of the Old Covenant examples of marriage is not really going to help in this matter.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:30 PM
Fake news, the unbeliever departs, then the believer is not bound to the unbeliever.
What fake news? Look at your statements in this thread? You posted scripture that says a woman cannot leave a living spouse. Then you post scripture that says you can leave a living spouse. Some one is confused, and it isn't the scripture. You don't believe that anyone has any say on the union, or on the casting away of a spouse. Someone who has documentation that they are married in Florida, can leave their spouse and join someone in Idaho. You believe it is all legit. Even when the government sees the individual still married in Florida.
I posted 2 exceptions.
One by Jesus and one by Paul.
You can go back and read them.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. ...
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
These are the 2 exceptions.
I know not any others.
votivesoul
09-03-2017, 10:35 PM
The bottomline is this:
Whatsoever proceedeth not from faith is sin.
To partake in a marital ceremony among believers that doesn't involve the state is fine.
What is not fine, however, is, after that ceremony and its consummation, to have doubts about difficulties regarding social security and etc., such as to begin referring to each other with pre-ceremony language.
That is highly suspect. In fact, it makes no logical sense. It strongly suggests, even implies, that until the state recognized marriage takes effect, the authenticity of the marriage as a whole is doubted, even if only subconsciously, such as to cause a reversion of terminology to a premarital state.
Everyone else is bound by the Law.
The bottomline is this:
Whatsoever proceedeth not from faith is sin.
To partake in a marital ceremony among believers that doesn't involve the state is fine.
What is not fine, however, is, after that ceremony and its consummation, to have doubts about difficulties regarding social security and etc., such as to begin referring to each other with pre-ceremony language.
That is highly suspect. In fact, it makes no logical sense. It strongly suggests, even implies, that until the state recognized marriage takes effect, the authenticity of the marriage as a whole is doubted, even if only subconsciously, such as to cause a reversion of terminology to a premarital state.
It is best to have a state recognized marriage for financial reasons etc., but not a prerequisite of God.
votivesoul
09-03-2017, 10:39 PM
The bottomline is this:
Whatsoever proceedeth not from faith is sin.
To partake in a marital ceremony among believers that doesn't involve the state is fine.
What is not fine, however, is, after that ceremony and its consummation, to have doubts about difficulties regarding social security and etc., such as to begin referring to each other with pre-ceremony language.
That is highly suspect. In fact, it makes no logical sense. It strongly suggests, even implies, that until the state recognized marriage takes effect, the authenticity of the marriage as a whole is doubted, even if only subconsciously, such as to cause a reversion of terminology to a premarital state.
And if there was even an ounce of doubt, for any reason, in the legitimacy of the marriage, even in the sense of worrying about being able to draw social security benefits and/or other state benefits, then, the marriage is no longer proceeding from faith; therefore it is sin.
Further, if continued consummation of the marriage is occurring, why doubt about it's legitimacy per SSI and etc., then even that becomes sin.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:39 PM
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Why didn't Jesus say if they were also unbelievers? The question Jesus is answering is divorce for any cause. He replies with one answer, fornication. Paul is dealing with something that has to do with an unbeliever. He says "God has called us to peace." What does that mean Sean?
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:41 PM
Everyone else is bound by the Law.
You know of anyone living today offering up animal sacrifices through a mediator priesthood?
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:42 PM
The bottomline is this:
Whatsoever proceedeth not from faith is sin.
To partake in a marital ceremony among believers that doesn't involve the state is fine.
What is not fine, however, is, after that ceremony and its consummation, to have doubts about difficulties regarding social security and etc., such as to begin referring to each other with pre-ceremony language.
That is highly suspect. In fact, it makes no logical sense. It strongly suggests, even implies, that until the state recognized marriage takes effect, the authenticity of the marriage as a whole is doubted, even if only subconsciously, such as to cause a reversion of terminology to a premarital state.
:thumbsup
votivesoul
09-03-2017, 10:51 PM
It is best to have a state recognized marriage for financial reasons etc., but not a prerequisite of God.
And why not a prerequisite of God? Simply because He, and not the state, is the One who holds our futures. What did God's people ever do without SSI?
They had faith and trusted Him for all things.
So, to reject the state's interference in one's marriage is fine, even noble, I suppose, if it's done out of true conviction and religious devotion.
But to then turn around and doubt, and go to the very state that was previously rejected, to get a benefit from it later in life, is a reversal of the true conviction and religious devotion.
So one of two things has happened. Either the true conviction and religious devotion was a sham, and repentance for bearing false witness is required, or turning to the state for SSI benefits is morally wrong, and doing so is is wrong, therefore, requiring repentance.
This is pretty black and white. Modifying mutually exclusive beliefs to accommodate and compromise is to shipwreck the whole thing.
People are not Oneness and Trinitarians. People don't believe in speaking in tongues and are also cessationists at the same time.
A rejection of the state's place in marriage but then going to the state for marriage in order to draw state-based marriage benefits is no different.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:54 PM
Paul is stressing the issue that if you are married do not look to be divorced. This is staying within Jesus' admonition in Matthew 5:32. the only Bible that Paul had to teach from had strict guidelines for divorce. Moses only granted a bill of divorcement because of the sinful nature of man's mind. Paul allows the individuals to separate so the believer can continue in peace. Where it says if they marry, they are talking about legal divorce prescribed in the OT.
Evang.Benincasa
09-03-2017, 10:58 PM
And why not a prerequisite of God? Simply because He, and not the state, is the One who holds our futures. What did God's people ever do without SSI?
They had faith and trusted Him for all things.
So, to reject the state's interference in one's marriage is fine, even noble, I suppose, if it's done out of true conviction and religious devotion.
But to then turn around and doubt, and go to the very state that was previously rejected, to get a benefit from it later in life, is a reversal of the true conviction and religious devotion.
So one of two things has happened. Either the true conviction and religious devotion was a sham, and repentance for bearing false witness is required, or turning to the state for SSI benefits is morally wrong, and doing so is is wrong, therefore, requiring repentance.
This is pretty black and white. Modifying mutually exclusive beliefs to accommodate and compromise is to shipwreck the whole thing.
People are not Oneness and Trinitarians. People don't believe in speaking in tongues and are also cessationists at the same time.
A rejection of the state's place in marriage but then going to the state for marriage in order to draw state-based marriage benefits is no different.
Good point.
You know of anyone living today offering up animal sacrifices through a mediator priesthood?
Do you wish the verses saying sinners are under the Law would go away?
And why not a prerequisite of God? Simply because He, and not the state, is the One who holds our futures. What did God's people ever do without SSI?
They had faith and trusted Him for all things.
So, to reject the state's interference in one's marriage is fine, even noble, I suppose, if it's done out of true conviction and religious devotion.
But to then turn around and doubt, and go to the very state that was previously rejected, to get a benefit from it later in life, is a reversal of the true conviction and religious devotion.
So one of two things has happened. Either the true conviction and religious devotion was a sham, and repentance for bearing false witness is required, or turning to the state for SSI benefits is morally wrong, and doing so is is wrong, therefore, requiring repentance.
This is pretty black and white. Modifying mutually exclusive beliefs to accommodate and compromise is to shipwreck the whole thing.
People are not Oneness and Trinitarians. People don't believe in speaking in tongues and are also cessationists at the same time.
A rejection of the state's place in marriage but then going to the state for marriage in order to draw state-based marriage benefits is no different.
Aaron, I had a state recognized wedding 33 years ago and I will claim benefits from it in my retirement years by collecting Social Security, and if I die my wife will get my Social Security income. I am glad I did it, because there are benefits including writing off myself and my spouse. But the origins of marriage have no State sponsorship that I can find anywhere.
Why didn't Jesus say if they were also unbelievers? The question Jesus is answering is divorce for any cause. He replies with one answer, fornication. Paul is dealing with something that has to do with an unbeliever. He says "God has called us to peace." What does that mean Sean?
Good question, ask Jesus and Paul.
Evang.Benincasa
09-04-2017, 12:04 AM
1 Corinthians 7:28 isn't talking about remarriage but marraige. Paul is emphasizing that if you're pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. Paul isn't condoning divorce and remarriage. Therefore you have no contradiction to the words of Christ or the scriptures which say God hates the putting away. Again, to review government marriage, the Bible is the template for good government. Divorce and remarriage is covered, but was overseen by the elders of the tribes, and the parents. Deuteronomy 24:1 describes a bill of divorcement, which was to annul a marriage, or begin the process for divorce. Matthew speaks of Joseph finding out that his wife Mary was pregnant and that he wasn't the father. His justness is pointed out that he wanted to divorce her privately. Opposed to publically. These proceedings were under the Beth din would oversee all cases of divorce and proceed accordingly. No one could just walk away from a marriage and join together with another mate. Adultery would be superseded easily if we were allowed to change spouses for any cause.
Evang.Benincasa
09-04-2017, 12:05 AM
Good question, ask Jesus and Paul.
Another Sean cop out.
Evang.Benincasa
09-04-2017, 12:06 AM
Aaron, I had a state recognized wedding 33 years ago and I will claim benefits from it in my retirement years by collecting Social Security, and if I die my wife will get my Social Security income. I am glad I did it, because there are benefits including writing off myself and my spouse. But the origins of marriage have no State sponsorship that I can find anywhere.
He was pointing out the hypocrisy of it.
But, as long as you get your way, who cares. You change with the wind.
Esaias
09-04-2017, 01:03 AM
Samson wanted a wife from the Philistines. We are told it was from the LORD.
This is not carte blanche, however, to marry unbelievers, because one time God sent one of His judges down this path.
In this way, we realize that trying to use many of the Old Covenant examples of marriage is not really going to help in this matter.
The old testament historical events happened as examples to us, and were recorded for our instruction and admonition. So they are definitely helpful. The issue is properly understanding what those examples demonstrate, both for them "back then", and for us today.
However, examples are secondary in order, coming in behind express commands, in determining doctrine or Biblical authority. The examples demonstrate how the commands were understood, or how the commands were applied to other situations, or else they demonstrate how certain commands were disobeyed, and the consequences thereof, etc. Examples do not, however, take precedence over commands.
votivesoul
09-04-2017, 02:15 AM
The old testament historical events happened as examples to us, and were recorded for our instruction and admonition. So they are definitely helpful. The issue is properly understanding what those examples demonstrate, both for them "back then", and for us today.
However, examples are secondary in order, coming in behind express commands, in determining doctrine or Biblical authority. The examples demonstrate how the commands were understood, or how the commands were applied to other situations, or else they demonstrate how certain commands were disobeyed, and the consequences thereof, etc. Examples do not, however, take precedence over commands.
I agree. That's why I limited the point to "this matter", that is, Sean was taking Abram and Sarai's lack of government-sanction marriage to draw a conclusion that has no bearing in our current context, or in the specific situation regarding Aquila. I brought up Samson to make a similar point.
Evang.Benincasa
09-04-2017, 06:41 AM
I agree. That's why I limited the point to "this matter", that is, Sean was taking Abram and Sarai's lack of government-sanction marriage to draw a conclusion that has no bearing in our current context, or in the specific situation regarding Aquila. I brought up Samson to make a similar point.
But this begs the question, what is government?
How did it originally start? Was Abraham an island to himself when he was married to his sister? Does Abraham even begin to be a model for marriage? Polygamy, as well as incest? The whole issue which is now being twisted, is about how we can get a notion believe it is God speaking to us and leave a spouse o go to another "spouse?"
A guy name of Joe Smith also had some spiritual feelings about marriage. It didn't work out for him personally. His original fist wife didn't go to follow his group into Utah.
What I find interesting is that someone can have a civil marriage. Then leave their civil marriage (because the governing rulership has no power over them?) and go join to another spouse? While they are still recognized by the governing powers to be in a civil marriage with another?
I agree. That's why I limited the point to "this matter", that is, Sean was taking Abram and Sarai's lack of government-sanction marriage to draw a conclusion that has no bearing in our current context, or in the specific situation regarding Aquila. I brought up Samson to make a similar point.
I also brought up pre-flood marriages, from Adam/Eve to Noah's world.
They were marrying and given in marriage.
By who's authority?
The mayor of (former)Eden?
I think everyone knows where i am going with this.:nod
1 Corinthians 7:28 isn't talking about remarriage but marraige. Paul is emphasizing that if you're pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. Paul isn't condoning divorce and remarriage. Therefore you have no contradiction to the words of Christ or the scriptures which say God hates the putting away. Again, to review government marriage, the Bible is the template for good government. Divorce and remarriage is covered, but was overseen by the elders of the tribes, and the parents. Deuteronomy 24:1 describes a bill of divorcement, which was to annul a marriage, or begin the process for divorce. Matthew speaks of Joseph finding out that his wife Mary was pregnant and that he wasn't the father. His justness is pointed out that he wanted to divorce her privately. Opposed to publically. These proceedings were under the Beth din would oversee all cases of divorce and proceed accordingly. No one could just walk away from a marriage and join together with another mate. Adultery would be superseded easily if we were allowed to change spouses for any cause.
No?.....
.....Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.....
It speaks for itself.:nod
You thought it said this....
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed(missing) ........
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned
Esaias
09-04-2017, 04:50 PM
What I find interesting is that someone can have a civil marriage. Then leave their civil marriage (because the governing rulership has no power over them?) and go join to another spouse? While they are still recognized by the governing powers to be in a civil marriage with another?
If the state considers two persons to be married, then the state will not recognize nor authorize a second marriage without a state authorised divorce or annulment. Bigamy is still considered a criminal offense in all 50 states, if I'm not mistaken.
TK Burk
09-04-2017, 07:09 PM
I am still looking for a verse in which folks were married by the apostles or other disciples in the first century Church
We know marriage ceremonies were common during the time of the Apostles. Jesus spoke of such a ceremony here:
Matthew 25:1-13 (KJV) Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. [2] And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. [3] They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: [4] But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. [5] While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. [6] And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. [7] Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. [8] And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. [9] But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. [10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. [11] Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. [12] But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. [13] Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Thus, there is no reason to believe this common practice would have ended.
TK Burk
09-04-2017, 07:16 PM
Sean you believe that a spouse can walk out on another spouse and then go live with another mate?
Interesting.
If they repent and begin to walk in the Spirit. They can be saved.
If the Spirit tells them to leave their current mate, then they must.
If not, then they must not.
:banghead
TK Burk
09-04-2017, 07:17 PM
This isn't about a spouse leaving their spouse to live with another.
Thank you!
TK Burk
09-04-2017, 07:19 PM
Marriages in the ancient world were agreed upon by the tribe, the elders, and the most of all the parents. So, yes, it was a state recognized marriage. Do you understand the process in a bill of divorcement?
Right!
TK Burk
09-04-2017, 07:23 PM
And why not a prerequisite of God? Simply because He, and not the state, is the One who holds our futures. What did God's people ever do without SSI?
They had faith and trusted Him for all things.
So, to reject the state's interference in one's marriage is fine, even noble, I suppose, if it's done out of true conviction and religious devotion.
But to then turn around and doubt, and go to the very state that was previously rejected, to get a benefit from it later in life, is a reversal of the true conviction and religious devotion.
So one of two things has happened. Either the true conviction and religious devotion was a sham, and repentance for bearing false witness is required, or turning to the state for SSI benefits is morally wrong, and doing so is is wrong, therefore, requiring repentance.
This is pretty black and white. Modifying mutually exclusive beliefs to accommodate and compromise is to shipwreck the whole thing.
People are not Oneness and Trinitarians. People don't believe in speaking in tongues and are also cessationists at the same time.
A rejection of the state's place in marriage but then going to the state for marriage in order to draw state-based marriage benefits is no different.
:thumbsup
We know marriage ceremonies were common during the time of the Apostles. Jesus spoke of such a ceremony here:
Matthew 25:1-13 (KJV) Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. [2] And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. [3] They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: [4] But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. [5] While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. [6] And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. [7] Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. [8] And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. [9] But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. [10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. [11] Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. [12] But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. [13] Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Thus, there is no reason to believe this common practice would have ended.
Right, but did they need a sign of Caesar on their certificate?
:banghead
TK, fake news DB is just blowin smoke here(as usual).
I dont believe a person can leave anyone, unless that anyone is committing fornication with another person.
Jesus did not expect anyone to live with an adulterous person.
Fornication/adultery breaks the union of man and woman.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
A man cannot sleep with a harlot(becoming one flesh) and still be one flesh with his wife.
If so, that man would be one flesh times two.(2 fleshes).
1 x 2 = 2.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 02:31 PM
Right, but did they need a sign of Caesar on their certificate?
Their marriage was recorded in Jewish genealogy. We see such a record in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Thus, the marriage was given license (consent) when it was recorded and recognized as a formal record.
I think you're confusing US law with ancient Jewish law.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 02:51 PM
Right, but did they need a sign of Caesar on their certificate?
Biblically, a marriage is a covenant or contract. At Sinai God made a ‘Ketubah,’ or ‘wedding contract’ with Israel. A “Ketubah” stipulates the man's and woman’s responsibilities. At Sinai, God revealed Himself, not to one person, but a whole nation (see Exodus 19:5-8). At a Jewish wedding, the groom arrives first and awaits the bride. The Jewish wedding processions used people carrying lamps. The man and woman are then set apart from all others to be only for each other. This is true holiness; the bride and the groom set apart from all others and to only each other. A marriage is a permanent covenant; an everlasting commitment, which is why it used to describe the New Covenant Jesus made with His Church--the Bride of Christ.
I agree TK with the lifetime commitment to your spouse.(I am happily married at 34 years in Nov.).
You also know these guys/gals......
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Can a man/woman be one with 2(or more)?
The definition of marriage is this, right?...
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
It seems that fornication with another breaks the oneness between husband/wife, creating oneness with another.
Their marriage was recorded in Jewish genealogy. We see such a record in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Thus, the marriage was given license (consent) when it was recorded and recognized as a formal record.
I think you're confusing US law with ancient Jewish law.
Never heard of that TK.(not saying it is not true either)
I only heard of families hearing folks' vows and the Law of Moses governing their marriage.
In the 1st century, where did they keep these marriage records(vital stats) for Jews?
Esaias
09-05-2017, 04:57 PM
I agree TK with the lifetime commitment to your spouse.(I am happily married at 34 years in Nov.).
You also know these guys/gals......
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Can a man/woman be one with 2(or more)?
The definition of marriage is this, right?...
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
It seems that fornication with another breaks the oneness between husband/wife, creating oneness with another.
Adultery is a capital offense according to the Bible, so unless the spouses were reconciled, one would be dead and the other free from the marriage. Thus, adultery has usually been considered by Christians as valid grounds for divorce in societies where the laws of God are not being enforced by the secular power.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 05:21 PM
Never heard of that TK.(not saying it is not true either)
I only heard of families hearing folks' vows and the Law of Moses governing their marriage.
In the 1st century, where did they keep these marriage records(vital stats) for Jews?
You can see evidence of it in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. That is where they got Jesus' lineage. Without such lineage, Jesus would have been disqualified to be the true Messiah.
The Jewish Temple contained Hebrew lineages leading all the way back to Adam. These were lost when the Temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD.
Jesus and Paul also scripturally include adultery for grounds of a divorce.
I know brethren back in the 80's who's husbands/wives were cheating and the ministry forbid them to ever remarry(from the pulpit).
I heard it one time and a certain brother came up to me very distraught that he was "stuck" with an out of control wife after hearing this taught.
Years later after the minister raised his own kids(read between the lines), he reexamined this subject and found allowance for remarriage.
We worked with his busted kids(our age) and grandkids through those times.(not pretty).
You can see evidence of it in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. That is where they got Jesus' lineage. Without such lineage, Jesus would have been disqualified to be the true Messiah.
The Jewish Temple contained Hebrew lineages leading all the way back to Adam. These were lost when the Temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD.
Okay, so these lineages included marriage details of all Israelites?
That would have been quite an undertaking for someone.
So, these state officials gave licenses to the couples?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 06:40 PM
Okay, so these lineages included marriage details of all Israelites?
That would have been quite an undertaking for someone.
So, these state officials gave licenses to the couples?
Licenses? If that means the marriages had to be acceptable to the Jewish government, then yes.
Sean, you should study to see the Bible's requirement for a pure Jewish lineage and you will see this. Study it out, Brother--study it out.
Licenses? If that means the marriages had to be acceptable to the Jewish government, then yes.
Sean, you should study to see the Bible's requirement for a pure Jewish lineage and you will see this. Study it out, Brother--study it out.
Study what, TK?
The internet has some whoppers.
I wonder if you or anyone can find something in ancient history or the Bible that reveals couples going for a license from a govt entity to get married.
I mean, if we teach it, shouldn't we be required to prove it?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 07:53 PM
Study what, TK?
The internet has some whoppers.
I wonder if you or anyone can find something in ancient history or the Bible that reveals couples going for a license from a govt entity to get married.
I mean, if we teach it, shouldn't we be required to prove it?
Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??
And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 07:53 PM
Study what, TK?
Uhm, how about the Bible? :smack
Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??
And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.
Wait a minute TK.
Who gets the bill to make it official?
The spouse or the sanhedrin?
If someone is served with a bill of divorcement, who gets it?
If a man wanted to divorce his wife then, did he write a letter(bill) to the govt or his wife.
I cannot think of a single verse that shows(even hints) a couple getting permission by a govt agency to get married in the old or new testament times, can you help me?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:04 PM
Wait a minute TK.
Who gets the bill to make it official?
The spouse or the sanhedrin?
If someone is served with a bill of divorcement, who gets it?
I asked you to explain that--so, please teach us.
If a man wanted to divorce his wife then, did he write a letter(bill) to the govt or his wife?
Did he write this SINGULAR bill in duplicate?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:08 PM
If a man wanted to divorce his wife then, did he write a letter(bill) to the govt or his wife?
Sean, why are you still asking me? You rejected my evidence, so you must know more than me. Please--teach me.
Aquila
09-05-2017, 08:10 PM
I'm aware of multiple interpretations regarding divorce and remarriage. Here's what I believe:
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Fornication can only be committed by one not in covenant (government licensed or not). Thus, this speaks of sexual sin with another during the traditional betrothal period observed by Jews. Remember, Matthew was written to Jewish believers, so this is mentioned. It isn't mentioned in Mark or Luke, which were written to audiences that included gentiles, who didn't have this traditional betrothal period. Compare:
Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Had Jesus meant an adultery clause, it would have read, "except it be for adultery". And all the Gospels would include the exception.
Paul addresses believers illustrating the same thing as the Lord did:
I Corinthians 7:10-11
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
For believers, if a spouse departs, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. And husbands are not to divorce a wayward wife.
But in the church, there might be unbelieving spouses, or apostate spouses who are not believers, nor expected to obey Christ. Regarding these, Paul offers a unique commandment of his own (Pauline Privilege):
I Corinthians 7:12-15
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Here Paul draws a contrast in cases involving an unbelieving or apostate spouse. If they depart, they are to be allowed to leave the marriage freely, and the believer isn't in bondage to the marriage, as those with believing spouses would be. In this way, peace is gained instead of the agony of trying to convince an unbeliever to reconcile.
So really, the only circumstance that allows for remarriage after a spouse departs is one in which an unbelieving or apostate spouse wishes to leave the marriage. In all other circumstances (including those involving adultery) the marriage bond is permanent. Neither are permitted to remarry, and reconciliation is admonished.
That's my take.
TK, I think that you believe govt was always hovering over marriage.
If so, that is not evident in the Bible.
What I think is evident was a 2 person commitment before their family or friends.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Is this a state licensed marriage into one flesh?
Sean, why are you still asking me? You rejected my evidence, so you must know more than me. Please--teach me.
I am, TK!
Keep bringing the questions so's we can iron this out.
Also, welcome back Chris!
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Is this a state licensed marriage into one flesh?
TK, God see's this(above) as one flesh, right?
Also, God see's this as one flesh right?....
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Fornication is also marriage?
Could the pre-flood fornicators simply be "marriage and given in marriage" to God?(wives of all that they chose)
Aquila, why do all of these preterists hide their names at the bottom?
It is kinda creepy to me, howbout you?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:27 PM
I am, TK!
Keep bringing the questions so's we can iron this out.
Also, welcome back Chris!
Where did you answer this?
Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??
And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:29 PM
TK, I think that you believe govt was always hovering over marriage.
If so, that is not evident in the Bible.
I am clueless what you're saying/asking here.
"Hovering over marriage"??
Governing marriage rights.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:32 PM
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Is this a state licensed marriage into one flesh?
Paul is using this to speak of sin, not marriage or divorcement. What are you trying to say?
Where did you answer this?
I am in the process.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:33 PM
TK, God see's this(above) as one flesh, right?
Also, God see's this as one flesh right?....
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Fornication is also marriage?
I'm having a hard time deciding if you're being silly here or serious.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:35 PM
Could the pre-flood fornicators simply be "marriage and given in marriage" to God?(wives of all that they chose)
Are you just thinking out loud, or was the above supposed to make a point?
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:37 PM
Aquila, why do all of these preterists hide their names at the bottom?
It is kinda creepy to me, howbout you?
You're asking a guy using the fake name "Aquila" if the preterists that use their real names in their posts are being creepy about their names? :blink
Aquila
09-05-2017, 08:42 PM
As for biblical marriage, it was governed by a private contract between couples or families (not a civil contract).
In the early church, common marriages were governed under common law, established by cohabitation and repute. Churches only blessed or condemned unions. In ancient Rome, such marriages were indeed legal and recognized by the government, though not established by Roman contract. Rome did have a contractual marriage in addition to common law. These were typically options for the wealthy and proper Roman citizens.
Common law marriages were recognized until the Anglican churches began requiring licensing under English law, which Quakers resisted. Common law marriages were common in the colonies and on the frontier. This endured until the time states began requiring civil licensing, around the time of the Emancipation to prevent mixed marriages. Today, most states have abolished common law marriage. Quakers have resisted this also, believing that marriage is a natural common right, not a civil privilege.
TK Burk
09-05-2017, 08:54 PM
As for biblical marriage, it was governed by a private contract between couples or families (not a civil contract).
In the early church, common marriages were governed under common law, established by cohabitation and repute. Churches only blessed or condemned unions. In ancient Rome, such marriages were indeed legal and recognized by the government, though not established by Roman contract. Rome did have a contractual marriage in addition to common law. These were typically options for the wealthy and proper Roman citizens.
Common law marriages were recognized until the Anglican churches began requiring licensing under English law, which Quakers resisted. Common law marriages were common in the colonies and on the frontier. This endured until the time states began requiring civil licensing, around the time of the Emancipation to prevent mixed marriages. Today, most states have abolished common law marriage. Quakers have resisted this also, believing that marriage is a natural common right, not a civil privilege.
So, did you get a legal divorce from your first wife before you remarried your new wife/fiancée?
votivesoul
09-06-2017, 12:11 AM
I cannot think of a single verse that shows(even hints) a couple getting permission by a govt agency to get married in the old or new testament times, can you help me?
Saul, as King of Israel (the governing agency) gave permission to any man who defeated Goliath, to marry his daughter. No one would have been allowed otherwise, that is, without Saul's consent.
When Boaz sat in the gate and bartered for Ruth's hand, the agency that governed the matter was first, the Torah, as this was an instance of the Levirate Vow, and secondly, the elders in the gate.
Just because these things look way different from what we think of when we say government, doesn't mean they were not.
The Bible has dowries, exchanges of land and treaties through marriage, bartering and negotiating for hands in marriage, and etc.
It's all there for anyone to see.
These things all help shape our understanding of marriage customs from Old to New Covenants.
Jesus went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee, in which an after ceremony reception was held, which was hosted by an MC.
See:
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/weddings-and-marriage-traditions-in-ancient-israel
http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=39&sub=400&cat_name=Manners+%26+Customs&subcat_name=Marriage+Customs
http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/marriage.html
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm
Aquila
09-06-2017, 06:26 AM
You're asking a guy using the fake name "Aquila" if the preterists that use their real names in their posts are being creepy about their names? :blink
LOL
It's the internet. I think anonymity is of value, especially if one has unpopular opinions.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1499503&postcount=229
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1499504&postcount=230
TK, I am serious.
Is ANY sexual union, (a type/description of)marriage in the eyes of God?
Notice the comparison to the harlot verse and the traditional marriage verse(s)
Maybe not, but your opinion is needed here.
Saul, as King of Israel (the governing agency) gave permission to any man who defeated Goliath, to marry his daughter. No one would have been allowed otherwise, that is, without Saul's consent.
When Boaz sat in the gate and bartered for Ruth's hand, the agency that governed the matter was first, the Torah, as this was an instance of the Levirate Vow, and secondly, the elders in the gate.
Just because these things look way different from what we think of when we say government, doesn't mean they were not.
The Bible has dowries, exchanges of land and treaties through marriage, bartering and negotiating for hands in marriage, and etc.
It's all there for anyone to see.
These things all help shape our understanding of marriage customs from Old to New Covenants.
Jesus went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee, in which an after ceremony reception was held, which was hosted by an MC.
See:
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/weddings-and-marriage-traditions-in-ancient-israel
http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=39&sub=400&cat_name=Manners+%26+Customs&subcat_name=Marriage+Customs
http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/marriage.html
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm
I agree with all of that(documentation by families etc.)
I dont see marriage licenses anywhere given by authorities in this though. Only approval of kin folk.(everyon can be 'agin it, but you can still get married by a state official)
This is what has changed in modern times.
TK Burk
09-06-2017, 09:08 AM
LOL
It's the internet. I think anonymity is of value, especially if one has unpopular opinions.
Please, share that with Sean. :highfive
Aquila
09-06-2017, 09:15 AM
It seems like marriage was in better shape before it became a government program. Sadly, due to many laws governing civil marriage, there is almost more incentive to divorce when the going gets tough than there is to remain married.
TK Burk
09-06-2017, 09:44 AM
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1499503&postcount=229
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1499504&postcount=230
TK, I am serious.
Is ANY sexual union, (a type/description of)marriage in the eyes of God?
Notice the comparison to the harlot verse and the traditional marriage verse(s)
Maybe not, but your opinion is needed here.
Sean, you were supposed to teach us, remember?
I asked you twice now these two questions:
Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??
And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.
You replied with the following:
I am in the process.
Is it really taking you this much time to answer these two questions?
TK Burk
09-06-2017, 09:45 AM
It seems like marriage was in better shape before it became a government program. Sadly, due to many laws governing civil marriage, there is almost more incentive to divorce when the going gets tough than there is to remain married.
So, did you get a legal divorce from your first wife before you remarried your new wife/fiancée?
TK Burk
09-06-2017, 10:28 AM
The 1838 Webster's Dictionary defines "license" as follows:
LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]
1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.
2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.
License they mean, when they cry liberty.
LI'CENSE, v.t.
1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.
2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.
3. To dismiss. [Not in use.]
So, basically, "license" means to be granted permission. With that in mind, Aquila and Sean, please answer the following:
If you have children, do they have Social Security numbers you use for identification purposes?
If you have children, do they have birth certificates you use for identification purposes?
Do you have a birth certificate that you use for identification purposes?
Do you have a Social Security number that you use for identification purposes?
Are you registered to vote?
Do you have a drivers license you use for identification purposes?
Do you have any type bank loan or credit card?
Do you pay taxes on your paycheck?
Do you use local utilities for your home?
Do you have a passport?
Do you have a gun permit?
Do you ever stay at a hotel or motel?
Do you ever purchase items that require a civil supplied photo ID?
Do you have a hunting license?
Do you have a fishing license?
Do you have a cell phone?
Do you ever visit casinos?
Do you ever give blood donations?
Do you purchase OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine?
Do you travel by plane?
Do you work for a company that pays you?
Do you ever make cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater?
Like a marriage, each of the above requires a CIVIL license, law, and/or picture ID.
So, if you do any of the above, then you are guilty of using civil authorities and laws to grant you permission to participate in said activities.
Thus, the claim that obtaining a civil license for marriage is anti-Bible is at best a biblically illiterate rant, or at worst it's an immoral justification for fornication, adultery, or polygamy.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.